2015 (5) TMI 599 - HC - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Held that - service tax demanded has already been satisfied under protest, but the adjudication is still to be finalised, it is made clear that in the course of such adjudication exercise, if the authority arrives at a finding that the petitioner is not liable to satisfy the service tax, the amount already satisfied by the petitioner shall be refunded at the earliest, at any rate, within one month thereafter. - Decision in the case of 2015 (5) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT followed - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 65(12)(v) of the Finance Act regarding Service Tax liability for a co-operative society.
2. Applicability of previous judgments in determining Service Tax liability.
3. Directions for the competent authority to consider the case and quantify the liability.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a co-operative society, contended that its activities do not fall under Section 65(12)(v) of the Finance Act, thus not subject to Service Tax. Despite submitting replies to show cause notices, the petitioner was served with further notices indicating liability. Citing previous judgments (Ext.P5 and Ext.P6), the court directed authorities to assess the petitioner's liability and quantify any tax due.

2. The court referred to a previous judgment in W.P(c) No.28713 of 2014 where a similar issue was decided in favor of the petitioner. Relying on this precedent, the court disposed of the current Writ Petition in line with the earlier judgment. The competent authority was instructed to consider the petitioner's case, review submitted replies, and determine the liability for Service Tax based on bye-laws and records maintained by the society.

3. The court directed the petitioner to engage with the Superintendent of Central Excise to address the liability issue, submit further documents if necessary, and complete the proceedings within two months. If the authority finds the petitioner not liable for Service Tax, any amount paid under protest should be refunded promptly. The judgment emphasized the importance of finalizing the adjudication process efficiently and ensuring timely resolution of the matter.