2016 (2) TMI 1294 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of Service Tax - main grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner society should be given exemption from paying the service tax - HELD THAT - When the petitioner society has not been included in the list of organizations, which are exempted form paying the service tax, this court cannot directly direct the respondents form exempt the petitioner society from paying the service tax - It is brought to the notice of this court that petitioner society has given a representation dated 15.10.2014 to the first respondent to exempt them from paying the service tax, however, the said representation has not yet been disposed of by the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2014 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks exemption from paying service tax.
2. Petitioner's representation for exemption not disposed of by the first respondent.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to exempt the petitioner society from paying service tax as per a specific government notification. The main grievance of the petitioner was the demand for exemption from paying the service tax. The respondents, in their counter, listed organizations already exempted from paying the service tax. Since the petitioner society was not included in this list, the court concluded that it could not directly order the respondents to exempt the petitioner from paying the service tax.

Issue 2: The court noted that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the first respondent requesting exemption from paying the service tax, but the first respondent had not disposed of this representation. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents agreed that the first respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a specified time frame. The court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within four weeks from the date of the court's order.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the first respondent to consider and decide on the petitioner's representation for exemption from paying the service tax. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural aspect of addressing the petitioner's request within a specified time frame.