9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 975 - HC - Service TaxVires of Rule 10 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 - whether Rule 10 is ultra vires to Section 66B read with Section 64 and 65B (52) and 66C(1) of the Finance Act, 1994? - validity of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 - validity of paragraph 4 and 4.1 of the TRU circular No. 206/4/2017-ST dated 13th April, 2017 - service tax on Held that - Finance Act, 1994 including the rules and the circulars issued thereunder have ceased to become effective to transactions with effect from 1st July, 2017. The present writ petition was filed on 29th May, 2018 after provisions relating to service tax in the Finance Act, 1994 have ceased to become applicable - it would not be appropriate and proper to issue notice to examine validity and vires of statutory provisions that are no longer in operation and no proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to vires of Rule 10 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012; Striking down of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994; Striking down of certain paragraphs of TRU circular No. 206/4/2017-ST; Restraining respondents from levying service tax on transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the vires of Rule 10 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, as being ultra vires to Section 66B read with Section 64 and 65B (52) and 66C(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, a prayer was made for striking down Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, and paragraphs 4 and 4.1 of the TRU circular No. 206/4/2017-ST dated 13th April, 2017. The final prayer sought to restrain the respondents from levying service tax on the transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India. 2. The Court noted that the Finance Act, 1994, along with its rules and circulars, ceased to be effective for transactions from 1st July, 2017. The writ petition challenging these provisions was filed on 29th May, 2018, after the relevant provisions had already ceased to be applicable. The petitioner's counsel admitted that there were no pending proceedings against the petitioner, and the writ petition did not address this aspect. The Court declined to examine the validity and vires of statutory provisions that were no longer in operation and for which no pending proceedings existed, avoiding an academic exercise. 3. The petitioner's counsel mentioned the possibility of challenging similar provisions in the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in the future. The Court did not make any comments on this statement and clarified that the dismissal of the present writ petition would not prevent the petitioner from challenging the current enactment. It was emphasized that any future writ petition would be examined on its merits in accordance with the law. 4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, considering the circumstances and the lack of pending proceedings or immediate relief sought by the petitioner. The decision was made based on the inapplicability of the challenged provisions and the absence of a specific plea or prayer for relief in the writ petition. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised, the Court's considerations, and the ultimate decision reached in the case.
|
