2021 (1) TMI 266 - HC - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - managing car and two wheeler parking in a public place while serving public - N/N. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 - HELD THAT - Reading of the clause Paragraph 24 of the notification 25/2012 vide Annexure-R2 read with the statement of objections filed by the second respondent cited supra, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption in payment of service tax, for the reasons that petitioner is rendering service to general public in permitting them to park the vehicles for a certain period of time and collecting fee. In other words, petitioner is rendering public services, therefore, service tax is payable. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of notice seeking payment of service tax, interest, and license fee.
2. Consideration of pending application by the petitioner.
3. Liability of the petitioner to pay service tax for managing car and two-wheeler parking.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash a notice dated 06.03.2015 demanding payment of service tax, interest, and license fee. The petitioner was a successful bidder for managing parking at a bus station. The High Court noted previous litigation on the matter and disposed of it, granting the petitioner the option to pay the service tax or seek exemption. The petitioner received subsequent notices for service tax and interest, leading to the current petition.

2. The petitioner argued against liability for service tax based on Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, claiming exemption under paragraph 24 relating to vehicle parking services to the general public. The respondents contended that the petitioner, as a service provider for parking, is liable to pay service tax. The second respondent's objections emphasized the consideration received for providing parking space to the public, asserting the petitioner's liability for service tax.

3. The core issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay service tax for managing car and two-wheeler parking in a public place. The court analyzed the Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax and the arguments presented. It concluded that the petitioner, by providing parking services to the general public and collecting fees, was liable to pay service tax. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the notice seeking payment of service tax, interest, and license fee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, notifications, and the court's reasoning behind the decision regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay service tax for managing parking services.