2016 (3) TMI 1002 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery of Service tax from service recipient - Petitioner contended that Corporation has accepted compromise formula so it now cannot recover any additional charges, either in the guise of service tax or escalation clause - Held that - the offer letter does not make any mention of service tax and must therefore be seen out side of such an offer. What is concluded refers to the rental charges and not the service tax. The offer letter is silent and refers to rental payable by the petitioner to the Corporation. If other than the rental charges, there is any other tax liability upon the petitioner, he must separately pay the same. Under the circumstances, the Corporation must be allowed to recover such charges on the computation of unpaid rentals to be paid by the petitioner to the Corporation as per offer letter. Also the Corporation shall be entitled to recovery of service tax also with respect of zones No.1 and 2 and there shall be no fresh computation of liability. - Decided against the petitioner

Issues Involved:
1. Release of Security Deposit with Interest
2. Legality of Contract Termination
3. Blacklisting of Petitioner
4. Fresh Tender Invitations
5. Settlement Agreement Terms
6. Payment of Rental Charges and Service Tax

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Release of Security Deposit with Interest:
The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to release a security deposit amounting to Rs. 39.85 lacs with interest. The High Court noted that the litigation had a checkered history, involving multiple disputes between the petitioner and Vadodara Municipal Corporation over the exhibition of advertisements on electric poles.

2. Legality of Contract Termination:
The Corporation terminated the petitioner’s contracts for all four zones on 17.8.2012 and subsequently debarred the petitioner from doing business with the Corporation for three years. The petitioner challenged these orders through Special Civil Application No.14541 of 2012. The High Court set aside the blacklisting order for being passed without a hearing and allowed the petitioner to make a representation regarding the contract termination.

3. Blacklisting of Petitioner:
The initial blacklisting was set aside by the High Court due to lack of hearing. Further negotiations led to a settlement where the Corporation agreed to drop the blacklisting proceedings as part of the settlement proposal dated 21.8.2013.

4. Fresh Tender Invitations:
The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the Corporation's actions, including inviting fresh tenders. The High Court issued interim reliefs preventing the Corporation from taking further action on fresh tenders until the disputes were resolved. These interim orders were clarified and extended several times, eventually leading to a settlement proposal.

5. Settlement Agreement Terms:
A settlement proposal was made by the petitioner on 21.8.2013, which included specific rental payments for different zones and periods. The Corporation accepted this proposal, which was then recorded by the High Court. The petitioner agreed to withdraw all legal proceedings, and the Corporation agreed to drop blacklisting and return the security deposit after adjusting dues.

6. Payment of Rental Charges and Service Tax:
The central controversy in the fresh litigation was the precise terms of the settlement agreement. The Corporation contended that additional charges, including price escalation and service tax, should be paid by the petitioner. The High Court ruled that the Corporation could not apply an escalation clause outside the agreed compromise formula. However, the petitioner was liable to pay service tax on the agreed rental charges. The Court directed the Corporation to recalculate the petitioner’s liability based on the agreed rental rates and service tax, and to release the remaining security deposit after adjustments.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition in part, directing the Corporation to recalculate the rental charges for zones 3 and 4 based on the agreed rates and to include service tax. The Corporation was ordered to retain the adjusted amount from the security deposit and release the rest to the petitioner. The Court also clarified that no fresh computation of liability was required for zones 1 and 2, except for any unpaid amounts due to dishonored cheques or similar reasons.

← Previous Next →