2018 (3) TMI 930 - HC - Service Tax

Works contract - notice was issued by the first respondent dated 19.09.2017 calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents on the alleged ground that the petitioner was providing taxable services to various customers - case of petitioner is that that he is an exclusive defence contractor and all contracts performed by him are exempt from service tax - Held that - It is seen that the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent on 24.11.2017 and the same is pending - while declining to grant the prayer sought for, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent with all the records and the first respondent shall enquire into the matter and ascertain the nature of work done by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of service tax provisions under the Finance Act, 1995.
2. Exemption of service tax for defense contracts.
3. Validity of notice issued by the first respondent.
4. Direction for the petitioner to appear before the first respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses a case where the petitioner, a Civil Engineering Diploma holder, has been working as a contract worker exclusively for the defense department in the Nilgiris District. The petitioner's contract was due to expire on 31.12.2010, and he received a notice from the first respondent on 19.09.2017 alleging that he was providing taxable services and liable for service tax under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1995. The petitioner contended that his work for defense contracts was fully exempt from service tax. The court noted that the first respondent had not assessed the petitioner for tax but issued the notice based on the alleged provision. The petitioner had submitted a representation to the first respondent, which was pending as of the court hearing.

The court acknowledged the narrow scope of the petitioner's case and recognized the need for an inquiry into the nature of work done by the petitioner to determine the applicability of service tax. While declining to quash the proceedings, the court directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent with all relevant records for an inquiry. The first respondent was instructed to ascertain the nature of the petitioner's work and proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioner was given a four-week period to comply with this direction, during which no coercive action could be taken against him. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of investigating the specific nature of the petitioner's work to determine the applicability of service tax, highlighting the need for procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements in tax matters.