9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners. The present transaction would not come within the purview of sub-section (a) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994. The matter would have been different if the concerned candidate paid the money to the Corporation, then the Corporation would not be required to make payment of any service tax on that amount. However, so long as the payment is made by the concerned candidate to the petitioners or by the Corporation to the petitioners, the service provider being the petitioners, there is an obligation on part of the petitioners to collect the service tax from the payee and be remitted to the concerned department - the stand taken by the Corporation that it is exempted from making payment under Section 66D of Finance Act is of no avail. The Corporation availing the services of the petitioners to render computer education to persons belonging to economically weaker section as regards which the Corporation has made the payment of monies to the petitioners would be amenable to service tax, that is to say, it is not exempted from service tax - Petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ For the Petitioner (By Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil., Senior Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... economically weaker sections of the Society. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation being satisfied with the qualification of the petitioner had entered into agreements in respect of different Assembly Constituencies for a period of three years to provide the above services and consequently, issued a work order. 5. The petitioners provided the services without any complaint from the respondent as regards which the petitioners were paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per candidate. The respondent Corporation not being regular in payment of monies, the petitioners had to follow up for such payment. The petitioners had also called upon the respondent to make payment of service tax due on the amount to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. When no action was taken, the petitioner in W.P.No. 44252/2015 and the petitioner in W.P.No. 48640/2015 filed W.P. Nos. 9749- 50/2012 for a mandamus seeking direction to the respondent to consider the representation which came to be allowed by way of order dated 17.07.2012. 6. Pursuant thereto, the respondent released the balance amount, however, did not make the payment of service tax amount. Despite the petitioners having brought to the notice of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely:- (a) services by Government or a local authority excluding the following services to the extent they are not covered elsewhere (i) services by the Department of Posts by way of speed post, express parcel post, life insurance and agency services provided to a person other than Government; (ii) services in relation to an aircraft or a vessel, inside or outside the precincts of a port or an airport; (iii) transport of goods or passengers; or (iv) support services, other than services covered under clauses (i) to (iii) above, provided to business entities; 9.2. Relying on the above, he submits that whenever there is a local authority which is involved in a transaction service, there would be no service tax which is required to be paid and local authority is exempted from such service tax. 9.3. Alternatively, he submits that the services have been rendered by the BBMP through the petitioners and therefore, no service tax is required to be paid by the Corporation to the petitioners on such service. 9.4. Insofar as proceedings initiated against the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners can always bring these facts to the knowledge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement with the petitioners to render computer training to persons identified by the Corporation as regards which those persons did not make payment of money, but the payment was made by the Corporation to the petitioners. 17. Though at first blush it may appear that services are rendered by the Corporation to the concerned candidate but in effect what has occurred is the petitioners have rendered the services on behalf of the Corporation to such candidate as regards which the Corporation has made payment of monies to the petitioners. Thus, when the Corporation makes such payment on a transaction with the petitioners, the service providers would be the petitioners and the service availer would be the Corporation and as such, it cannot be said to be that services are provided by the Corporation. 18. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the present transaction would not come within the purview of sub-section (a) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994. The matter would have been different if the concerned candidate paid the money to the Corporation, then the Corporation would not be required to make payment of any service tax on that amount. However, so long as the payment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
