Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 5A (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondent no. 2 in visiting the premises of the petitioner no. 1 on December 4, 2014. According to the petitioner such action is illegal, without authority of law and against the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to Rule 5A (1) of the Rules of 1994 and Section 82 of the Finance Act, 1994. He has submitted that, the assessment for Service Tax for the petitioner was completed much prior to the impugned actions. The notice dated February 5, 2014 has no basis in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have been sought to be invoked for the period from 2008-09 to 2013-14. The assessment for such period was over. Such assessment has attained finality. They cannot be reopened.
(3.) Consequently, the authorities could not have invoked Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to him, the authorities are not sure of the provisions of law that have been invoked for the purpose of issuing the notice dated February 5, 2014 and the action of the authorities in visiting the premises of the petitioner.;