2013 (9) TMI 789 - HC - Service Tax

Demand - Tender service tax - Interim orders in referred case - Held that - It is no doubt true that the interim order in M/s. Retailers Association of India 2011 (10) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India , indicates that the appellant therein was directed to deposit 50% of the arrears towards tax within 6 months in 3 equated installments on or before 1st November 2011; 1st January 2012 and 1st March 2012 and for the balance 50% to furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner as also file affidavit before the Apex Court within 4 weeks there from, undertaking to pay the balance arrears of service tax stayed in terms of the order and that the successful party in the appeal shall be entitled to interest on the amount stayed by the court at such rate as may be directed during the final disposal of the appeal. However, by another order of even date in Home Solutions Retail India Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India , the Apex Court did observe that no coercive steps should be taken against the appellant therein for recovery of - 133 - arrears of service tax due on or before 30th September 2011 - therefore, in effect, the respondent - Revenue must also desist from taking coercive steps in recovering arrears of tax pre 30th September 2011 from the petitioners, while taxes post 30th September 2011, are liable to be paid - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Application for direction to pay service tax amount due as per interim orders of the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed applications seeking direction for the writ petitioners to pay the service tax amount due based on interim orders of the Supreme Court. The interim order in the case of Retailers Association of India directed payment of 50% of arrears within specified timelines and required a solvent surety for the remaining amount. However, a subsequent order in the case of Home Solutions Retail India Ltd. stated that no coercive steps should be taken for recovery of arrears of service tax up to a certain date. The petitioners argued that this observation should benefit them, and the Revenue should refrain from coercive recovery for arrears pre-dating the specified date.

The counsel for the Revenue proposed that the petitions be disposed of subject to pending Civil Appeals before the Apex Court, suggesting that petitioners pay 25% of arrears up to a certain date and furnish security for the remaining amount. On the other hand, the petitioners argued that an interim order from the court had already directed a stay on recovery of arrears up to a certain date, making the direction to pay 25% unnecessary. The court considered these arguments and decided to direct the petitioners to furnish security for arrears pre-dating the specified date and await the decision of the Apex Court.

In conclusion, the court ordered the applications accordingly, disposing of the writ petitions subject to the Apex Court's decision. The petitioners were given six weeks to comply with the order and were granted liberty to make further applications based on the Apex Court's decision.