9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Respondent No.1 - Held that: - If the AAI (Airports Authority of India), on its own, deposited the service tax with the Central Government, the AAI would be entitled to refund thereof in accordance with law - the Court is of the view that there is no justification for Respondent No.1 to continue retaining the BG issued in its favour. Accordingly Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith return to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elease of two other BGs in favour of Respondent No. 2, Mumbai International Airport Private Limited ( MIAL ) for ₹ 16.50 lakhs and ₹ 93.08 lakhs, the said two BGs lapsed and were not renewed. 2. The case of the Petitioners is that, after the decision dated 30th July 2014 of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4274/2010 ( Airport Retail Private Limited v. Union of India ), no service tax wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the BG subject to it being kept renewed by the Petitioners during the pendency of the petition. 5. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Advocate, states that the said BG has been kept alive pursuant to the above direction of this Court. 6. In its reply, Respondent No. 1 states that since it has already deposited the service tax with the Central Government, it cannot seek refund and that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, the Court is of the view that there is no justification for Respondent No.1 to continue retaining the BG issued in its favour. Accordingly Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith return to the Petitioners BG No. PBG 2007/70029 dated 16th February 2008 issued in its for a sum of ₹ 70 lakhs and, in any event, not later than 30th September 2017. 9. Although Respondent No. 2 has not fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
