2014 (9) TMI 387 - AT - Service Tax

Renting of immovable property service - matter is still pending before the hon ble High Court. - Held that - Since it is a settled position that proceedings seeking remedy cannot be sought before two forums simultaneously and the matter is still pending before the hon ble High Court we dismiss the appeals and stay petitions as not maintainable before us at this point of time. If the appellant is able to get suitable direction in this regard for restoration of the appeals they are liberty to move applications for restoration of the appeals. - decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand on renting of immovable property service.
2. Challenge to the vires of the levy before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
3. Pending decision on whether the transaction attracts service tax or VAT liability.
4. Maintainability of appeals and stay petitions before the Appellate Tribunal.

Confirmation of service tax demand on renting of immovable property service:
The judgment pertains to appeals and stay petitions arising from Orders-in-Original confirming service tax demand on 'renting of immovable property service'. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 10,04,20,255/- for June 2007 to March 2011 and &8377; 1,35,90,586/- for April 2011 to March 2012, along with interest and penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, M/s Inox Air Products Ltd., challenged these orders before the Appellate Tribunal.

Challenge to the vires of the levy before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court:
The appellant had initially challenged the vires of the levy on service tax before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a Writ Petition. The High Court had passed interim directions stating that no coercive steps for recovery of service tax should be taken from the Petitioner pending a decision. Subsequently, the appellant sought clarification from the High Court on whether the transaction attracted service tax or VAT liability. The High Court continued the interim relief, and the matter remained pending before it.

Pending decision on whether the transaction attracts service tax or VAT liability:
Despite the impugned orders, neither the appellant nor the Revenue had approached the Hon'ble High Court for further directions. As it is established that seeking remedies from two forums simultaneously is impermissible, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals and stay petitions as not maintainable at that point. The Tribunal suggested that if the appellant obtained suitable direction from the High Court, they could apply for restoration of the appeals.

Maintainability of appeals and stay petitions before the Appellate Tribunal:
Given the pending nature of the matter before the Hon'ble High Court and the principle against seeking remedies from multiple forums simultaneously, the Appellate Tribunal found the appeals and stay petitions not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could seek restoration of the appeals upon obtaining appropriate direction from the High Court. The judgment highlights the importance of following procedural requirements and avoiding parallel proceedings in different forums.