2009 (9) TMI 216 - HC - Service Tax

Reimbursement of Service Tax Payable by DDA The Petitioner seeks a direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to the respondent/DDA to reimburse the service tax deposited by the petitioner and not to discriminate the petitioner. - In the present circumstances the agreement between the parties does not stipulate that the respondent is liable for the Service Tax the correspondence on which the petitioner rely do not reflect any admission on the part of the respondent to pay the service tax nor there is any admission to pay the interest. - On the basis of the letter dated 17th September 2007 it is contended that since the letter dated 28th July 2007 forms part of the agreement and the said letter stipulates about applicability of the service tax - Held that - the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the remedy of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of alleged amount of Rs.60, 19, 872/- on account of service tax with interest at 12% from the date of first payment of the service tax in the facts and circumstances of this case. The writ petition dismissed.

Summary

In a High Court judgment, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent/DDA to reimburse the service tax deposited by the petitioner and not to discriminate against the petitioner. The petitioner requested reimbursement of Rs. 60,19,872 on account of service tax, which was declined by the DDA on the basis of their agreement with M/s. Brahmputra Infrastructure Ltd. The petitioner argued that the correspondence between the parties, specifically a letter dated 17th September, 2007, stipulated that service tax should be payable to the petitioner by the respondent. However, the court found that the agreement between the parties did not stipulate the liability of the respondent to pay the service tax, and the letter dated 28th July, 2007, on which the petitioner relied, did not admit the liability of the DDA to pay the service tax. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed amount of service tax from the respondent. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could pursue other civil remedies if available, and left the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment emphasized that the disputes between the parties involved substantial disputed questions of facts which could not be resolved without detailed evidence and cross-examination. The court highlighted that the petitioner could not invoke the remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for recovery of the service tax amount in the given circumstances.