M/S World Trade Park LTD., (Formerly Known As M/S R.F. Properties And Trading Limited) vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s World Trade Park Ltd. and Anoop Bartaria, challenged an order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Jaipur. The dispute pertains to the period 2014-2017. Previously, for the period 2010-2012, a show cause notice was issued for non-payment of service tax on commercial and industrial construction. A demand was created on 28.03.2014, and the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Officer (AO) on 20.10.2017 for fresh consideration. This remanded matter remains pending. The petitioners argue that the construction of their building was completed in 2010. However, the respondents proceeded with the 2014-2017 period assuming the building was under construction until 2017, without resolving the earlier issue.
Held
The Court held that relegating the petitioners to the remedy of appeal would not serve any useful purpose because the issues involved in both periods (2010-2012 and 2014-2017) are interdependent. The Court noted that the petitioners' claim that the building was completed in 2010, if successful, would negate the department's claim for service charges for the period 2014-2017 for rendering construction services. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 06.07.2021. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 (Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue) to decide the proceedings concerning the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019 along with the proceedings for the period 2010-2012. The Court directed the respondents to endeavor to decide the matter expeditiously, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.07.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Jaipur, for the period 2014-2017 is valid, considering that the issue of service tax on construction for the period 2010-2012, which is interdependent, is still pending before the Adjudicating Officer pursuant to a remand by the Tribunal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the building was completed in 2010. They contended that proceeding with the demand for service tax for the period 2014-2017 without resolving the earlier issue, which is intrinsically linked, is erroneous. They also argued that relegating them to the remedy of appeal would be futile given the interdependence of the issues. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 21/02/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J(ORAL):-
This petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Jaipur, relating to the period of 2014-2017. [2025:RJ-JP:7943-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9007/2021]
The brief facts are that the petitioners started construction of a commercial building on the land allotted by the Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘JDA’). For the period of 2010 to 2012, show cause notice (for brevity ‘SCN’) was issued for non- payment of service tax for rendering service of commercial and industrial construction. In pursuance to the SCN, demand was created on 28.03.2014 and ultimately Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide order dated 20.10.2017, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Officer (for brevity ‘AO’) to decide the matter afresh after considering the documents produced. Its an undisputed fact that the matter after remand is pending till date.
In the matter pertaining to 2014 to 2017, one of the issue was with regard to levy of service tax on construction for commercial or industrial purpose. The construction of the building was completed in the year 2010 and this issue is pending before the AO in pursuance to the remand by the Tribunal. Without deciding this issue, the respondents have proceeded on the basis that the building was under construction till 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have a remedy of appeal.
Relegating the petitioners to the remedy of appeal shall not serve any useful purpose, as the issue involved in both the periods are interdependent.
As per the petitioners, the building was completed in the year 2010, in the scenario of petitioner succeeding there would be no occasion for the department to issue SCN claiming
[2025:RJ-JP:7943-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9007/2021] service charges for the period 2014 to 2017 for rendering service of construction.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for deciding the matter in pursuance to the SCN dated 13.11.2019 along with the proceedings for the period 2010 to 2012. 8. Taking into account that the matter involved is from 2010 onwards, the respondents shall make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J AARZOO ARORA /107S. Whether Reportable: No
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.