9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner should be understood as having undertaken to bear the liability of all taxes statutorily mandated arising from the performance of the service. The service tax being one such indirect tax levyable in terms of the Finance Act, 1996 with effect from 16th August 2002, the question of the Petitioner, in terms of the contract not being liable to bear the burden of service tax, did not arise. The petition is dismissed. - W.P.(C) No.18412 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2021 - DR. S. MURALIDHAR CHIEF JUSTICE AND B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGE Petitioner and Advocate : Gautam Mukherji, Suva Laxmi Suva Laxmi S.Mukherjee, Supriya Patra, A.C. Panda, P. Mukherji, B. Panigrahi, Suvalaxmi Respondent and Advocate : J. Pattnaik, A. Pattnai, M. Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner wrote a letter to SAIL, Branch Sales Office (BSO), Rourkela, enclosing a copy of the Cargo Handling Service Registration number issued by the Central Excise Department on 19th July, 2005. The subject of that letter reads Registration of Service Tax. 5. In a letter addressed to the BSO, SAIL on 6th February 2006, the Petitioner pointed out that on 17th January 2006, a team of officers of the Central Excise and Customs, Rourkela had visited its office and issued summons for production of records/documents pertaining to the contract dated 15th February 2005, for recovery of service tax on Cargo Handling Service. The Petitioner noted in the letter that this contract fells under service tax net which attracts the liability of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, no further liability would arise for SAIL unless there is an increase in the rate of service tax and in that event only the differential liability could be passed on the SAIL. The rate under the contract signed after 16.8.2002 is always inclusive of service tax. In the instant case, the contract has been signed on 17.2.2005 which is well after 16.8.2002 when the rate applicable for service tax was at 10% + 2% Education Cess (from 10.9.2004). Hence, question of reimbursement of service tax would arise only if there is an increase in the rate of service tax during the tenure of the contract and such reimbursement would be limited to the component/portion of the total service tax which is in excess of 10.20% due to rise in the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided under the contract. The amenability of the service provided by the Petitioner to service tax was not as a result of any change in the law after the date of entering into the contract but much prior thereto. Having entered into the contract with open eyes, the Petitioner should be understood as having undertaken to bear the liability of all taxes statutorily mandated arising from the performance of the service. The service tax being one such indirect tax levyable in terms of the Finance Act, 1996 with effect from 16th August 2002, the question of the Petitioner, in terms of Clause 3.2 of the contract not being liable to bear the burden of service tax, did not arise. 13. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to accede to the pray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
