Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. 1. the petitioner has challenged the notice of demand dated 20-9-2000 (annexure-1) to the writ petition demanding from it service tax. the petitioner claims that it is carrying on business of sale and manufacture of bidies in the name and style of m/s. ram kishan daya ram as a registered partnership firm at gursahaiganj, kannauj. it is not transporting any goods and therefore, is not liable to pay any service tax.2. section 116 of the finance act, 2000 has amended clause (6) in section 65 of the act no. 32 of 1994 which reads as under :'(a) in section 65 -(i) for clause (6), the following clause had been substituted, namely :-(6) 'assessee' means a person liable for collecting the service tax and includes -(i) his agent; or(ii) in relation to services provided by a clearing and for-warding agent, every person who engages a clearing and forwarding agent and by whom remuneration or commission (by whatever name called) is paid for such services to the said agent; or(iii) in relation to services provided by a goods transport operator, every person who pays or is liable to pay the freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage.'3. the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not covered by clause (iii) of sub-section (6) of section 65 of the act (as amended) and it is not liable to pay any freight either itself or through its agent for the transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage.4. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is only manufacturing bidies and is not covered by clause (iii) of sub-section (6) of section 65 of the act. it is further contended that the service tax has to be realised keeping in view the provisions of clause 16 of section 65 of the act.5. the petitioner has only been given a notice in regard to the payment of the service tax. he can file an objection before the superintendent, central excise range, gursahaiganj, district kannauj, respondent no. 2. on such an objection being made, the respondent no. 2 shall decide the same by a reasoned order after affording opportunity to the petitioner, within six weeks from the date of its submission. in case the petitioner submits its objection within two weeks from today, as indicated above, the respondent no. 2 shall not enforce its order till the objection is decided.6. the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of finally.