PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order of assessment passed by the respondent No. 2 imposing and recovering from the petitioner establishment 10% service tax for the service rendered by them and further challenging the order dated 15-12-2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amount, this writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Petitioner has primarily challenged the action of imposing the liability on account of the fact that the petitioner establishment is treated to be an autonomous body incorporated by the statutory provision and functioning within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is pointed out before us, on the basis of judgments rendered by this Court in the case Professional Examination Board v. Bhopal Municipal Corporation - Civil Revision No. 1232/2002, decided on 23-7-2003 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pratibha Singh Ku. (Minor) v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2014 (3) MPJR 178 that even though the Madhya Pradesh Vyavshayik Pariksha Mandal Adhiniyam, 2007 was enacted by the State Government for constituting the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, but, as the notification under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 2007 was not issued. The Division Bench in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra) has been that the Professional Examination Board, namely the petitioner herein, is not constituted under the Adhiniyam, 2007 and, therefore, it continues to be constituted and function as a department of the State by virtue of the notification issued on 17-4-1982 and again on 22-1-2004.

(3.) This being the moot question for consideration, we are required to analyze as to whether in imposing liability on the Board for payment of Service Tax, the Revenue has proceeded correctly in the matter, whether we should invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or we should relegate the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the matter is already pending and the only impediment of the petitioner is that the Tribunal is not hearing the appeal because they are required to deposit 10% of the demand made. The demand runs to more than 1,50,00,000/- in each of these cases, four of which have been filed and listed for hearing today.