- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the respondent No. 1, published in Daily News Paper 'Dainik Bhaskar' dated 28-1-2012 (Annexure-8), whereby it was directed that if amount of service tax/penalty/interest is pending against any party/service provider, the same may be deposited within a period of seven days, failing which an action for recovery of tax will be initiated under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 , like attachment of movable or immovable property etc.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that a notice to show cause was issued to petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Jaipur on 24-10-2009 for not paying the amount of service tax of Rs. 1,64,499/- for the period from 10-9-2004 to 31-3-2008. Finally, an order was passed on 18-1-2011, whereby a demand of service tax was raised against the petitioner for the aforesaid amount. Being aggrieved with the same, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Appeals vide order dated 28-9-2011. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi along with an application for stay and the next date fixed in the case for hearing on stay application by the Tribunal is 2-4-2012.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has already preferred an appeal along stay application and the next date fixed by the Tribunal for hearing on stay application is 2-4-2012, but in the meantime, notice has been issued on 28-1-2012, therefore, it will be appropriate to stay the recovery of amount till the stay application is heard by the Tribunal, otherwise property of the petitioner will be attached and auctioned. In support of his submissions, he referred the judgment of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Shree Cement Ltd. v. Union of India, 2001 133 ELT 301(Raj.).;