2018 (1) TMI 564 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - It will be open for the tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh after considering two decisions relied upon by the assessee and give reasons independently without influenced by the fact that this court has set aside the order on merits to maintain jurisdictional discipline since two decisions are not considered - matter remitted back for fresh consideration.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of retreading of tires under service tax category pre-amendment
2. Violation of judicial discipline and binding precedence by the tribunal
3. Tribunal's authority to rectify apparent mistakes on record

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the tribunal's decision dismissing the appeal regarding the taxability of retreading of tires under the service tax category before the amendment. The High Court framed a substantial question of law to determine if retreading of tires constituted a taxable service under the "Management, maintenance, or repair" service category as defined in the relevant sections. The court clarified that it was only deciding on question no. 2, which focused on the violation of judicial discipline and binding precedence by the tribunal. The High Court set aside the tribunal's order on this issue and remitted the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration.

2. The appellant argued that the tribunal had overlooked its own dictum/order of not taxing retreading of tires under service tax before the specified date. The High Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and noted that the tribunal needed to consider its previous decisions on the matter. The court directed the tribunal to reexamine the issue independently, taking into account the decisions relied upon by the assessee. The High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but instructed the tribunal to provide its findings after considering the judgments.

3. The High Court addressed the tribunal's stance on being functus officio and unable to rectify apparent mistakes on record. The court referred to a previous order granting the appellant liberty to move a rectification application before the tribunal. The High Court emphasized that the tribunal had the authority to reconsider the matter afresh, giving reasons independently and without influence from the court's decision to set aside the order. The High Court disposed of the appeal, highlighting the need for the tribunal to maintain jurisdictional discipline and provide its own findings after considering all relevant judgments.