- (1.) In this writ petition, INdian INstitute of Aeronautical Science, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of summonses dated 29th July, 2008, 11th December, 2008, two summonses both dated 12th January, 2009, 22nd January, 2009, 4th May, 2009 issued by the Service Tax authorities and the letter dated 21st May, 2009 issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate General of Central Excise INtelligence, East Zonal Unit, Kolkata, the respondent No.2, under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and all proceedings thereunder on the ground that though the petitioner had responded to the summonses, had furnished the information and documents as were sought for and had recorded their presence whenever called upon, yet summonses have been issued repeatedly to conduct a roving and fishing enquiry and to harass the petitioner.
(2.) The matter was moved upon notice on 14th July, 2009 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on record. Dr. Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on the statements made in the writ petition has submitted that since it is evident from the summonses annexed to the writ petition and the replies thereto, that the petitioner had furnished all documents which were sought for and was present all through in order to co-operate with the authorities for the purpose of carrying on the proceedings, repeated issuance of summons was uncalled for. Relying on the judgments in Dwijendra Lal Brahmachari and Ors. vs. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr., 1978 112 ITR 568, in Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, 1985 21 ELT 38 and in A.S. Corporation vs. Union of India, 2009 15 STR 378, it is submitted that the entire exercise amounted to abuse of powers vested on the Service Tax authorities and, hence, summonses should be quashed. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Service Tax authorities relying on the affidavit-in-opposition, particularly sub- paragraphs (i) to (xix) of paragraph 4 thereof has submitted that as the facts relating to repeated issuance of summons as well as the non-cooperation by the petitioners have gone uncontroverted, the respondents were justified in issuing summonses and the intimation. Submission has been made that summonses have been issued to corroborate the materials which have been gathered pursuant to the investigation carried out by the Intelligence authorities. Since there was non-cooperation summons dated 5th October, 2009 was issued which has come back on 9th October, 2009 with the postal endorsement 'Refused'. Let a copy of the summons dated 5th October, 2009 furnished by the respondents be kept with the records.
(3.) In reply, it is submitted that since the institute was closed during the Puja holidays, the petitioner had no opportunity to accept the summons dated 5th October, 2009. The issue to be considered is whether the Service Tax authorities were justified in issuing repeated summons as evident from the records. Though it has been contended in the writ petition that as all the requirements, queries and documents sought for by the authorities were furnished, the statements made in paragraphs 4(i) to (xix) of the affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been specifically stated referring to the facts in detail that due to lack of submission of data, information and figure, investigation is still pending - have not been denied in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply. Paragraph 5 of the reply is as under : "5. That the statements and/or allegations made in various sub paragraphs being (i) to (xix) of paragraph 4 of the said affidavit are specifically denied and disputed. I state that the petitioner has all along duly replied to the various requisitions issued by the respondent No.l and 2 from time to time and there is no delay or laches on the part of the petitioner as alleged or at all. I further repeat and reiterate the contentions made by the petitioner in paragraphs No. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the writ petition.";