2022 (2) TMI 735 - HC - Service Tax

Recovery of service tax - services provided by the petitioner under the category of clubs/associations - period between April 2016 to June 2017 - HELD THAT - Though the petitioner is required to file a reply to the statement of demand and participate in the adjudication mechanism prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994, this Court is of the view that the issue is covered against the revenue in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited 2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT which has been followed by this Court in the petitioner's own case M/S. OOTACAMUND CLUB VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST CENTRAL EXCISE, COONOOR 2020 (2) TMI 1615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Since the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served in relegating the petitioner to file reply to the statement of demand - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to statement of demand seeking recovery of service tax on services provided by petitioner under clubs/associations category for specific period.

Analysis:

The petitioner contested a statement of demand issued on 25.03.2019 to recover service tax on services provided under the clubs/associations category between April 2016 to June 2017. The Court noted that while the petitioner was required to respond to the demand and engage in the adjudication process as per the Finance Act, 1994, the issue was already decided against the revenue. The Court referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited, which was also applied in the petitioner's own case in a previous order dated 25.02.2020. The Court highlighted that the issue of liability to pay service tax was settled by the Supreme Court's decision and the Court's previous ruling in the petitioner's case.

The Court concluded that since the issue was already decided in favor of the petitioner based on the Supreme Court's decision and the Court's previous ruling in the petitioner's case, there was no need for the petitioner to respond to the statement of demand. Therefore, the Writ Petition was allowed, providing consequential relief to the petitioner. The Court ordered the connected miscellaneous petitions to be closed without any costs. The judgment emphasized that due to the favorable legal precedents, the petitioner was not required to file a reply to the demand, and the matter was resolved in the petitioner's favor based on established legal principles.