M/S.Tarini Prasad Mohanty vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court found that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.(C) No.15921 of 2020, disposed of on 22.10.2020. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of that order. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within 15 days from the date of the order. It was open to the petitioner to bring to the appellate forum's attention the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court and to seek waiver of pre-deposit of the amount by filing an interlocutory application. The appellate authority was directed to consider such an application, keeping in view the orders passed by the apex Court, and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Court did not decide the core issue of whether service tax is leviable on royalty, DMF, and NMET, leaving it for the appellate authority to adjudicate.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Rourkela, which directed the levy and imposition of service tax on royalty, DMF, and NMET for the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner argued that this order violated the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, a matter pending before a 9-Judge Bench. The petitioner also sought to stay the enforcement of the impugned order until the disposal of SLP (Civil) No.37326 of 2017 in Udaypur Chamber of Commerce v. Union of India. The revenue contended that a similar issue was addressed in another writ petition (W.P.(C) No.15921 of 2020) where the petitioner was directed to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Rourkela, levying service tax on royalty, DMF, and NMET, is in gross violation of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 (SC) 85, which is pending adjudication before a 9-Judge Bench of the apex Court? Petitioner's contention: The impugned order cannot sustain in law as it violates the Supreme Court's ratio in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the matter is pending before a larger bench. Revenue's contention: The issue is similar to W.P.(C) No.15921 of 2020, which was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within fifteen days. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal with a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The Union of India had no objection to this direction.