9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) indicated earlier, at least at the time of executing it. The petitioners have signed the Lease Deeds knowing the terms, with open eyes. The petitioners, therefore, cannot wriggle out of their liability. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that since the Panchayat is the assessee to service tax, the service tax arrears cannot be recovered from the tenants, cannot stand the scrutiny of law - In RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. VERSUS DEWAN CHAND RAM SARAN [ 2012 (4) TMI 457 - SUPREME COURT] , the Apex Court held that the provisions concerning service tax are relevant only between the assessee under the statute and the tax authorities. The statutory provisions cannot be of relevance to determine the rights and liabilities of the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. According to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners are liable to pay service tax along with monthly rent. The Government ordered to collect service tax from the petitioners. The Panchayat received the order only in December, 2011. Therefore, service tax for the years from 2007 could not be collected in time. The Panchayat had issued notice to tenants. Only two tenants paid the service tax. In the circumstances, the Panchayat paid the tax from its funds, to the Central Excise Department. The Panchayat is entitled to recoup the said amount from the petitioners. 4. The 3rd respondent-Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit filed counter affidavit. An audit conducted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax will fall on common citizens, since the Panchayat is a Local Self Government Institution. The direction of the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, is therefore legal and justifiable. 7. I have perused the pleadings and heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. 8. As per Clause 2(2) of Exts.P1 to P5 agreements executed by the petitioners-lessees, the lessee covenants with the lessor as follows:- To bear, pay and discharge all existing and future charges, assessments and outgoings payable in respect of the said premises inclusive of the ground rent of ₹ 1061/- (Rupees One thousand and Sixty one only) per mensom or any other sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural mass have a duty to disclose the real price at which the service is provided. I do not think, the said Division Bench judgment can be of any use to the petitioners in this case. Because, generally a contract of insurance is a contract of adhesion, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate. The Division Bench judgment dealt with such a form of contract. 11. In the petitioners' case, the agreement is of a lease. The petitioners were aware of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, including Clause 2(2) indicated earlier, at least at the time of executing it. The petitioners have signed the Lease Deeds knowing the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
