Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1266 - HC - Service TaxIssues: Challenge to the validity of Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. Refund claim based on judgments declaring certain notifications ultra vires. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Gujarat involved the challenge to the validity of Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including declaring Rule 10 ultra vires certain sections of the Finance Act, striking down Section 66B in specific circumstances, and challenging certain circulars. The Court noted that similar issues were raised in multiple petitions and decided to dispose of them together. The lead matter was identified for convenience. In the factual background, the petitioner had been taxed for services under a specific notification. The Court referred to previous judgments, such as one declaring certain notifications ultra vires the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Another judgment quashed proceedings related to service tax on sea transportation services in CIF contracts. These precedents were crucial in the present case. The Court also highlighted an order in a separate case where refund claims based on unconstitutional taxes were discussed. The respondent authority had rejected the petitioner's refund claim, citing precedents and the need for writ petitions or civil suits for such refunds. The Court emphasized that its judgments were binding on subordinate authorities, even if pending before higher courts, and directed the respondents to refund the service tax paid by the petitioner promptly. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petitions, directing the respondents to refund the service tax paid by the petitioner pursuant to the invalidated notification. The refund was to be made within a specified timeframe with interest, as per the law. The Court made the rule absolute, signaling a clear victory for the petitioners in challenging the tax provisions and seeking refunds based on previous judicial pronouncements.
|