9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1439 - HC - Service TaxLiability of service tax - petitioner was a successfull bidder in the auction held on 10-5-2012 for collection of toll amount - Held that - The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that pursuant to the present demand dated 1-4-2013, the petitioner had submitted a reply on 8-4-2013 stating that he is not liable to pay the service tax - the respondent is directed to take up the petitioner s reply dated 8-4-2013 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks - petition dismissed - matter on remand.
Issues involved:
Challenge of Service Tax levy for lease period 2013-14 and 2014-15. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Service Tax levy for the lease period 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner, a successful bidder for toll collection, argued that no Service Tax was imposed during the demand made in 2012 and thus, the respondent cannot collect it for the subsequent renewal period of 2013-14. The petitioner's counsel contended that since the Corporation resolved to collect Service Tax from licensees after 27-2-2012, the Service Tax was not collected from the petitioner before that date. The petitioner also submitted a reply on 8-4-2013 stating non-liability for the Service Tax. The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner's service is taxable under Rule 65(105) of the Service Tax Rules, making the petitioner liable to pay Service Tax. The Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause notice demanding payment of Service Tax, which was upheld after an appeal by the Corporation. The Corporation decided to recover Service Tax from all licensees post a resolution on 27-2-2012. The respondent contended that the Service Tax for 2012-13 was not collected due to the Corporation's decision to collect it from licensees. The judgment dismissed the writ petition, stating there was no merit. However, it directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply dated 8-4-2013 and pass suitable orders within four weeks. The court emphasized the duty of respondents to reply to petitioner representations, especially when a significant tax amount is due. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs, concluding the legal proceedings regarding the challenge of Service Tax levy for the mentioned lease periods.
|
