2016 (4) TMI 800 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking extension of time to carry out and conclude the auction/sale - Aircraft is grounded and parked at the site - Held that - after the date and the time, which is mentioned as last flight in the petition, filed by the Petitioner, this Aircraft has not taken off but continues to be parked and lying in the subject place and from where its removal is sought by the Petitioner. Thus, the records and in relation to any maintenance carried out before the Aircraft took off in March, 2013, if available with the Petitioner or any other Authorities stationed at the Airport, then, the Service Tax Commissioner can very well obtain it, but that by itself and without anything more, should be no reason go on seeking extension of time. The deponent of the Affidavit as also the Chief Commissioner would be personally responsible for compliance of the orders and directions of this Court and for all statements that are made in the affidavits till date. It is depending upon their compliance that we considered the request of extension of time. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Extension of time for auction/sale by Commissioner of Service Tax V, Mumbai Commissionerate.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay considered the request for extension of time for auction/sale by the Commissioner of Service Tax V, Mumbai Commissionerate. An additional affidavit was filed by the Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, stating sincere efforts to comply with the Court's orders. The affidavit mentioned engaging M/s.MSTC Ltd. as the Auctioneer and publication of auction advertisements. Discussions with M/s.Air India Engineering Services Ltd. resulted in finalizing an agreement for their appointment as a Technical Advisor.

After obtaining concurrence from the Chief Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Zone, a firm agreement with M/s.Air India Engineering Services Ltd. was expected to be executed by a specified date. The Court scrutinized the blue print for the auction and disposal of the Aircraft, raising concerns about the lack of certification or statements regarding the maintenance and operation of the Aircraft. The Court questioned how the ambitious auction program was announced without such essential documentation.

The Respondent, M/s.Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., confirmed handing over all documents and certificates related to the Aircraft to the Service Tax Commissioner. They clarified their lack of technical or engineering staff and mentioned the grounded status of the Aircraft at the petition site. The Court emphasized the need for the Service Tax Commissioner to have obtained all records and documents independently, without relying excessively on the Court's intervention.

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Service Tax Commissioner's reliance on the Court for relief in a matter not directly involving him. It urged the Commissioner to take necessary steps independently and not file vague or general statements in affidavits. The Court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner's compliance with the Court's orders and directions, holding the deponent of the affidavit and the Chief Commissioner personally responsible for ensuring compliance.

The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing for May 6, 2016, to monitor the progress and efforts made by the concerned parties. All affidavits filed were taken on record, emphasizing the need for genuine and sincere efforts from the officials involved to comply with the Court's directives.