2019 (10) TMI 152 - HC - Service Tax

Vires of Section 66C(2) and 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w. Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules - levy of service tax provided by the person in a non-taxable territory - vires of N/N. 01/2017, 14/2017 and 15/2017 - HELD THAT - The Petitioners have filed the Petition for a declaration in the absence of any of the Petitioner s rights being jeopardized i.e. there are no facts pleaded of the Petitioner s rights being affected and/or threatened. The challenge is made in vacuum i.e. without particulars. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 66C(2) and 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with related rules, seeking to levy service tax in a non-taxable territory, and the validity of certain notifications under the IGST Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66C(2) and 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, in conjunction with Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, and Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules. The petitioner also contests the legality of certain notifications under the IGST Act, specifically Notification Nos. 01/2017, 14/2017, and 15/2017, concerning the imposition of IGST tax on services during the import of goods. The court notes the absence of a cause of action in the petition, emphasizing that no specific rights of the petitioner have been jeopardized or threatened. The challenge is deemed to be made in a vacuum, lacking necessary particulars, which leads the court to decline entertaining the petition due to insufficient grounds.

Furthermore, the court highlights that other parties with valid causes of action on the same issue have had their petitions admitted. Specific reference is made to a case involving Laxmi Organics Industries Limited v/s. Union of India and Ors., indicating that decisions rendered in those cases would also benefit the petitioner when a cause of action arises in their situation. Despite the petitioner's request for an adjournment, the court decides not to entertain the petition at the present time. However, the court grants the adjournment to a later date as requested by the petitioner's counsel, setting the next hearing for 25 September 2019.