Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The petitioners have assailed a show-cause-cum-demand notice dated September 7, 2009 in the writ petition. It has assailed the consequent order in original dated February 6, 2012 in the interim application.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner has questioned the assumption of jurisdiction to issue the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice. He has submitted that, the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice is without jurisdiction in as much as, Service Tax is not payable in respect of a composite contract. According to him, a composite works contract is not exigible to Service Tax when, such contract cannot be dissected into a compartment which allows imposition of Service Tax on a quantum of the contract. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the subject contracts were entered into before June 1, 2007. He has relied upon (Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 170) in support of his contentions. He has pointed out that, an order in original has since been passed in the proceeding emanating out of the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice. Since the impugned