2017 (2) TMI 1545 - HC - Service Tax

Payment against the 8 supplementary invoices raised by the Kolkata Port Trust towards reimbursement of service tax - HELD THAT - The Service Tax Department will be making available to the Kolkata Port Trust the necessary Cenvat Credit for the said sum of Rs. 3,94,34,035/- paid towards service tax on the basis of the supplementary invoices and the original discharge certificate as aforesaid issued by the Service Tax Department as per the statement made in paragraph 3(e) and 3(f) of the affidavit in opposition affirmed on 22nd day of January, 2017 by and on behalf of the Service Tax authority, and thus shall not demand the original discharge certificate from the writ petitioner No.1 for any related or other purpose whatsoever. Since no affidavit in opposition has been filed the allegations are deemed to have been denied. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reimbursement of service tax by Kolkata Port Trust to the writ petitioner.
2. Availability of Cenvat Credit for the paid service tax.
3. Legal remedies available to the parties after payment.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Calcutta directed the Kolkata Port Trust to pay Rs.3,94,34,035 to the writ petitioner against 8 supplementary invoices raised for service tax reimbursement. The payment was ordered to be made within two weeks, contingent upon the writ petitioner providing the original discharge certificate issued by the service tax department. No further documents or security were to be demanded. Both parties were granted liberty to pursue any other claims they may have against each other before the appropriate forum after the payment is made.

2. The Service Tax Department was instructed to provide the necessary Cenvat Credit to the Kolkata Port Trust for the sum paid towards service tax. This credit was to be based on the supplementary invoices and the original discharge certificate issued by the Service Tax Department. The Court explicitly stated that the Service Tax Department should not request the original discharge certificate from the writ petitioner for any purpose.

3. As no affidavit in opposition was filed, the Court deemed the allegations to have been denied. Consequently, the writ petition (WP No.948 of 2016) was disposed of, allowing both parties to pursue their legal remedies for any other claims they may have against each other. The judgment provided a clear directive for the payment of service tax reimbursement, the availability of Cenvat Credit, and the subsequent legal options available to the parties involved.