T.C Venkataiah vs. Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of exemptions under Notifications No. 11/2010-ST, 45/2010-ST, and 32/2010-ST for services related to electricity distribution during the periods 2010-11 and 2011-12 required consideration by the 1st respondent. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's alternate submission of availing the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order-in-original and the garnishee order and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to submit written objections within three weeks. The 1st respondent was to fix a hearing date, afford an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass fresh orders within one month thereafter. The Court clarified that the Revenue could issue a fresh garnishee order if necessary and that the petitioner was at liberty to either pursue the adjudication or avail the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. The ratio is that where there is a plausible claim of exemption that was allegedly not considered by the adjudicating authority, and the petitioner seeks to avail a legacy dispute resolution scheme, remitting the matter for fresh consideration serves the ends of justice, even if the initial appeal was time-barred.
Facts
The petitioner, engaged in providing services related to electricity transmission and distribution to APSPDCL, received a show-cause notice in 2013 for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12, proposing service tax, interest, and penalties. The petitioner believed services to electricity transmission companies were exempt based on notifications and did not reply. The 1st respondent passed an order-in-original on 27.02.2014, confirming the demand, allegedly ignoring exemptions for 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected as time-barred. The petitioner, claiming to be unlettered and unaware of service tax intricacies, filed a writ petition challenging the order-in-original and a subsequent garnishee order dated 25.09.2018, seeking to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh consideration or to avail the Sabka Vishwas Scheme.
Key Issues
1. Whether the services provided by the petitioner to APSPDCL relating to transmission and distribution of electricity were exempt from service tax during the periods 2010-11 and 2011-12, in light of Notifications No. 11/2010-ST, 45/2010-ST, and 32/2010-ST, and Circular No. 131/13/2010-ST? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the services provided were indeed exempt based on the aforementioned notifications and circular, which were allegedly ignored by the assessing officer. They relied on decisions in Kedar Constructions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur, M/s. Ranadey Micronutrients Vs. Collector of Central Excise, and N. Sinivasula Reddy and CCE, Nellore. The petitioner also argued for the applicability of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and sought a remand for fresh consideration on merits or to avail the scheme. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the assessment order was from 2014, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the petitioner was guilty of laches, disentitling them from claiming exemptions based on notifications, circulars, and precedents.
Sections Cited
Section 65, Section 66, Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.48209 of 2018
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti)
This writ petition is filed seeking verbatim the following relief: “…..declaring the impugned order as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned order-in-original No.26/2014 (S.Tax) (ADC) dated 27.2.2014, passed by the 1st respondent and garnishee order dated 25.9.2018, issued by the 2nd respondent pass such other order or orders.”
We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and of the learned senior standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2. We have perused the material record. The facts of the case of the petitioner, which are relevant for consideration, in brief, are as follows: “The petitioner is engaged in providing ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services, Maintenance and Repair Service and Man Power Recruitment and Supply Agency Services’ to Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL) relatin
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.