Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioner is a company engaged in the business of leasing operation and supervisory work for supply of coal to various power plants. The petitioners had applied for registration under the Service Tax Act on 2nd November, 2005 describing their service as Business Auxiliary Services. Case of Mr. Poddar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under the provisions of paragraph 4 (sic) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, there is provision for deemed registration if the registration certificate is not granted within a period of 7 days. The petitioner's grievance is that there has been no rejection of that application but, on the other hand, after twenty -two months of making of that application the petitioner has been registered in the category of clearing and forwarding services. The rate of tax appears to be same under both these categories but in the event the petitioner comes within the latter category, his liability to pay Service Tax originates from the year 1999. It appears that the petitioner has already filed two appeals in the Tribunal at Calcutta and the Tribunal at Nagpur (sic). In these appeals the issue involved is whether the petitioner ought to be registered as rendering service of clearing and forwarding agents or that of Business Auxiliary Service. Thus in this writ petition I am not entering into that part of controversy. Before me, Mr. Poddar has confined his argument on the point as to whether without an appropriate order of adjudication the petitioner can be registered in a different category from the one for which application was made by the Service Tax Authorities after twenty -two months in an unilateral exercise.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Service Tax Authorities submits that this is essentially a factual issue and since allegation has been made on the authority or jurisdiction of the Service Tax Authorities on the question of registering the petitioner in a category different from the category for which the petitioner had applied for that matter ought to be decided by the authorities themselves and the Service Tax authorities were willing to re -examine the petitioners' case. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and particularly having regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revenue that they are willing to re -examine the matter, I do not think the certificate of registration granted in favour of the petitioner can be allowed to remain in operation and accordingly I direct that no effect shall be given to the same.
(3.) THE concerned authority being the Commissioner Service Tax, having jurisdiction over the matter shall consider the petitioner's case upon giving them an opportunity of being heard and this exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. A reasoned decision shall be given in accordance with law which shall be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of one week. So far as the petitioner's existing status is concerned, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they shall continue to pay Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service if that is the manner in which they have been paying the tax uptil now until final decision is taken by the Commissioner on the subject dispute. With these directions, by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties I dispose of the writ petition at this stage only without calling for any affidavit. The allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied. I make it clear that I have not made any observation on merit in this matter and the Commissioner, Service Tax shall adjudicate dispute on its own merits.;