2023 (4) TMI 1024 - HC - Service Tax

Exemption from Service tax - petitioner claims that as a Cantonment Board and being a Municipality they are exempted from paying Service Tax - writ petitions disposed off on the ground that at the stage of Show cause notice, writ petitions cannot be entertained - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Cuddalore Municipality case rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, has not been considered by the respondents in the impugned order and therefore, necessarily the impugned order has to be quashed and the matter will have to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption from Service Tax for Cantonment Board and Municipality.
2. Consideration of previous court orders in passing current orders.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court decision on Service Tax liability.
4. Quashing and remanding of impugned order for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Cantonment Board and Municipality, challenged an order demanding Service Tax despite claiming exemption. The petitioner argued that previous court orders directed the respondent to consider exemptions before confirming the tax liability. The petitioner contended that as a Municipality, they are exempt from paying Service Tax.

2. A Single Judge previously disposed of writ petitions challenging show cause notices, emphasizing the need for the respondent to consider past court decisions before finalizing orders. However, the respondent argued that conflicting judgments exist on whether a Municipality is liable to pay Service Tax, citing a different judgment challenging the exemption status of a Municipality.

3. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the Service Tax demand, which the petitioner disputed as inapplicable. The court noted that the previous court order favoring the petitioner was not considered in the impugned order, leading to the quashing of the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration within a specified timeframe.

4. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the case in light of previous court orders within twelve weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.