Commissioner Of CGST, Panchkula vs. Nestle INDIA Limited

Original PDF →

STA/26/2019HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01077617201915 February 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The revenue, Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula, filed appeals (STA-26-2019, STA-27-2019, STA-2-2020, and STA-12-2021) against an order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh. The CESTAT had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, Nestle India Limited, setting aside various demands and observing that service tax could not be levied on the respondent. The appeals before the High Court concerned the taxability of certain services. The revenue sought to challenge the CESTAT's decision regarding the imposition of service tax.

Held

The Court held that an appeal to the High Court is not maintainable in matters concerning the taxability of services. This decision was based on the precedent established by the High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd and The Principal Commissioner vs. M/s. Raj Kishan and Co. The revenue's counsel could not dispute this legal proposition. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, if so advised. The caveat petition and any pending applications were also dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether an appeal to the High Court is maintainable in a matter relating to the taxability of services, specifically concerning the imposition of service tax. The respondent argued that the question of taxability is a matter that can only be considered by the Supreme Court. They relied on the judgment of the High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd, 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 202 (P&H), and another judgment in STA-23-2019 titled The Principal Commissioner vs. M/s. Raj Kishan and Co., decided on 12.03.2020, which consistently held that appeals to the High Court are not maintainable in cases concerning taxability. The appellant (revenue) was unable to dispute the proposition of law laid down in the cited judgments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

STA-26-27-2019, STA-2-2020 and STA-12-2021 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Caveat Petition No. 2758-2019 in/and STA-26-2019 (O&M) Date of decision:15.02.2023 Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula ....Appellant V/s. Nestle India Limited ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Senior Standing Counsel-CBIC with Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the caveator/respondent. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral). CM-23558-CII-2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 48 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. STA-26-2019 (O&M) This order shall dispose of four STAs having nos. STA-26- 2019, STA-27-2019, STA-2-2020, and STA-12-2021 having identical issue. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are being extracted from STA-26- 2019. The revenue has come up in appeal against the order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the appeal filed by the respondent Nestle India Limited against the various notices was allowed by setting aside the demand in the separate categories with observation that the service DIVYANSHI 2023.02.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document/order

STA-26-27-2019, STA-2-2020 and STA-12-2021 -2- tax could not be levied upon the respondent. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent states that question of determination of the imposition of taxability is a question which can only be considered by the Supreme Court and he has referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd, 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 202 (P&H) and another judgment passed in STA-23-2019 titled The Principal Commissioner vs. M/s. Raj Kishan and Co., decided on 12.03.2020 wherein it has been consistently held that appeal to High Court is not maintainable in a matter relating to taxability. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the proposition of law as laid down by the above said judgments. Keeping in view this fact, this appeal is dismissed with liberty to the revenue to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if so advised. Caveat Petition and pending application (if any) also stand dismissed. (RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 15.02.2023

Divyanshi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2023.02.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.