2012 (12) TMI 705 - HC - Service Tax

Writ of mandamus - prayer to direct the UOI to suitably amend Section 67(v) of the Finance Act, 1994 - valuation of taxable services u/s 67 - abatement in respect to reimbursement of statutory wages and levies and/or to allow an abatement equivalent to the reimbursement of statutory wages and levies - Held that - no such direction can be issued to the Government to amend the law, therefore, the prayer outright rejected. Writ of mandamus has been sought by the petitioner against the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) - held that - The petitioner has failed to show that there has been inaction on the part of the authority concerned, thus not inclined to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Petitioner seeking mandamus to amend Section 67(v) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding service tax on gross amount charged without abatement for statutory wages.
2. Petitioner requesting mandamus to CBEC to amend circular disallowing abatement for statutory wages in case of security agencies.
3. Petitioner seeking mandamus on BSNL to bear service tax demand on security agency as per Supreme Court judgment.
4. Consideration of preliminary objection on granting mandamus without approaching the concerned authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to direct the Union of India to amend Section 67(v) of the Finance Act, 1994, concerning service tax levied without abatement for statutory wages. The Court rejected this prayer, stating that no direction can be issued to amend the law.
2. Another relief sought was a writ to CBEC to amend its circular disallowing abatement for statutory wages in the case of security agencies. The Court advised the petitioner to approach CBEC for this matter.
3. The petitioner also requested a writ on BSNL to bear any confirmed service tax demand on security agencies, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Court noted that a writ of mandamus can only be issued if the authority concerned is approached, which was not done in this case.
4. The Court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel regarding the grant of mandamus without approaching the relevant authority. The Court emphasized the need for approaching the concerned authority before seeking such relief and dismissed the writ petition for lacking merit.

Overall, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of approaching the relevant authorities before seeking mandamus relief. The Court also highlighted the need to show inaction on the part of the concerned authority to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus.