DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) Two show-cause notices are under challenge in the present writ petition. A circular dated August 12, 2016 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) is also under challenge.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the authorities in issuing any of the two show-cause notices. According to him, two show-cause notices by different wings of the Service Tax Authority on the same issue for overlapping period is not permissible. He relies upon 2016 (42) S.T.R. page 634 (Cal.) (Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata) and 2011 Volume 4 Calcutta High Court Notes page 53 (Avery India Ltd. v. Union of India) in support of his contention. The show-cause notices have invoked the extended period of limitation. Such invocation is incorrect. The authorities could not have invoked the extended period in the facts of the present case. The petitioner is not guilty of suppression of any fact nor is the petitioner guilty of evading tax. The jurisdictional facts, required for invoking the extended period of limitation, are absent in this case. Every fact was known to the authorities by virtue of the documents disclosed in respect of the proceedings under the show-cause notice dated April 17,2013. He relies upon 2006 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases page 573 (Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P.) , Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. (supra) and 2015 Volume 37 S.T.R. page 451 (Cal.) (Naresh Kumar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) in support of his contention.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the two impugned show-cause notices. He submits that, the impugned show-cause notices refers to a circular issued by CBEC dated August 12, 2016. He submits that, such circular claims to provide clarification on Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. The clarifications provided in such circular are beyond the scope of Rule 10. He relies upon 2008 Volume 226 E.L.T. page 16 (S.C.) (Union of India and Ors. v. Inter Continental (India)) , 1993 Volume 12 E.L.T. page 349 (Del.) (Indian Aluminum Company Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) and 2016 Volume 43 S.T.R. page 482 (Sourav Ganguly v. Union of India and Ors.) in support of such contention. He submits, assuming that the circular is correct, then, such a circular being against the assessee, is required to be applied prospectively. In support of such contention, he relies upon 2007 (208) E.L.T. page 321 (S.C.) (Suchitra Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur) . He submits that, the circular is binding upon the authorities. By virtue of its binding nature, it forecloses the judgment of a quasi judicial power. The same is not permissible. In support of such contention, he relies upon 2015 (39) S.T.R. page 705 (S.C.) (Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.) .;