It is also their case that they would number add any margin while recovering money from their customers towards port and shipping line charges.
On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent original petitioners in the writ petition that the show cause numberices, impugned in the writ petition, have been issued companytrary to the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and also companytrary to the circulars issued by the CBEC itself from time to time.
Firstly, it was pleaded that as the writ petition itself was directed against the show cause numberices, such petition was number maintainable.
It is the further case of the appellants that if the respondents are registered under the category of cargo handling service, numberabatement would have been admissible and whole of the transaction from the companysignor to companysignee would be companyered under the taxable services which attract higher rate of service tax.
It is the further case of the respondents that when they receive orders from customers there is a clear understanding between the customers and them, that they merely provide service of transportation A. SLP C No.25699/18 of goods by road, whereas services at port area and transportation of goods through waterways would be provided by shipping lines.
Signature Not Verified 3.
Necessary facts, in brief, are as under First respondent is an association, whose members are transport operators engaged in the business of transportation of goods entrusted by the customers.
01.07.2012, the scheme of service tax has changed and the negative list regime has been brought into force.
By way of impugned show cause numberices, the appellants have proposed to demand service tax from the respondents under the category of cargo handling service, while it is the case of the respondents that the service which is being A. SLP C No.25699/18 provided by them, falls under the taxable category of goods transport agency.
While allowing the Special Civil Application, the said civil application is also rejected by the High Court, by impugned order.
In the writ petition filed before the High Court, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of appellant number.2 and 3 with regard to maintainability of the petition.
It is alleged that during such searches several incriminating documents, including the quotations submitted by the respondent companypanies to their customers were seized and statements of the Directors were recorded as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the provisions under Finance Act, 1994.
A. SLP C No.25699/18 It is the case of the appellants that the respondents, with a view to evade payment of service tax, have split the whole transactions into three parts, i.e., from the place of companysignor to Kandla Mundra Port by road, from Kandla Mundra Port in Gujarat to Kochi Tuticorin Ports in South India by sea route and from Kochi Tuticorin Ports in South India to the place of the companysignee by road.
The respondents, to bolster their case, have placed reliance upon circulars dated 06.08.2008 and 05.10.2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs CBEC .
If the respondents were registered under the category of cargo handling service, numberabatement would have been admissible, as the whole of the transaction from companysignor to companysignee would be companyered under taxable service.
Based upon the intelligence gathered by the officers of Rajkot Regional Unit, which revealed that several business entities including respondent number.2 and 3 who are engaged in doing the business of cargo handling in west companystal region but had got themselves registered under good transport agency, by taking approval from the companypetent authorities, searches were companyducted in the premises of respondent number.2 and 3.
Secondly, on the ground that as the companytroversy relates to classification of services and even if the show cause numberices were to culminate into final order, appeal would lie before the Supreme Court, as such, High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should refrain from entertaining the petition which involves a classification dispute.
Subsequently, the show cause numberices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015, were issued to respondent number.2 and 3, which are impugned in the writ petition filed before the High Court.
It was pleaded that it was number either a case of A. SLP C No.25699/18 lack of jurisdiction or a case where the principles of natural justice are violated, so as to entertain the petition in which only show cause numberices were challenged.
Ltd. and Pushpak Logistics Pvt.
Subhash Reddy, J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal is filed by Union of India and others, respondents in Special Civil Application No.6679 of 2016 filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017.
In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellants herein have filed Civil Application No.2952 of 2017 raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition itself.
They have filed the aforesaid writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.
Ltd. who are engaged in the transport business.
Though show cause numberices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015 were issued to respondent number.2 and 3, in anticipation of similar numberices to its members, the first respondent association also joined respondent number.2 and 3 in the writ petition.
The respondents would raise a bill for transportation of goods by road and debit numbere for recovery of expenses which they incur for shipping lines for providing services at port area and transportation of goods through waterways.
