M/S Singh Construction Company vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned order (Annexure-13) is appealable, and the petitioner had not filed an appeal. The Court found insufficient material on record to conclude that the deduction was made on road construction, beyond the communication of an award of contract (Annexure-2). The petitioner was expected to establish their case with production of invoices, TDS details, and agreements, which could be done in an appeal. Consequently, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition. However, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal within one month from the date of the order, directing the appellate authority to treat it as a properly instituted appeal and consider it on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Singh Construction Company, challenged an order (Annexure-13) passed by the Department levying service tax for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the receipts on which tax was levied pertained to road construction for the State of Bihar, a service they claimed was exempted as per Annexure-1. The Department had issued notices (Annexures-9 and 11) regarding tax deducted at source (TDS) from the petitioner's receipts and sought explanations for levying service tax. The petitioner's replies (Annexures-10 and 12) were considered insufficient by the Department, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the impugned order levying service tax, given the availability of an alternative appellate remedy? 2. Whether the petitioner has provided sufficient material to establish that the construction services rendered were entirely exempted from service tax? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the entire quantum of receipts taken by the Department for levying tax related to construction of a road for the State of Bihar, as per a contract from the Road Construction Department, Araria (Annexure-2), and that this service is exempted. Therefore, they are entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to produce details regarding TDS and contract receipts but failed to do so. The Department's notices specifically spoke of TDS and sought explanations. The Court noted that the petitioner had not provided sufficient material to establish the exemption, except for a communication regarding an award of contract.