Apn Thirumana Mahal vs. The Commissioner Of Municipal Administration
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, APN Thirumana Mahal, represented by its proprietor A. Paramasivam, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 6, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy. This order demanded service tax for the period April 2016 to June 2017 and imposed a penalty. The petitioner, a Kalyana Mandapam proprietor, was registered as a Mandap Keeper. The petitioner argued that their contract with the Trichy Municipality for collecting bus stand entrance fees from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2016, was covered by Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST, Sl.No. 39, and that the activity was not a taxable service. The revenue contended that the petitioner's activity might not fall under the said exemption.
Held
The Court observed that the issue involved a disputed question of fact, requiring detailed examination, which is not typically undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought liberty to file a statutory appeal. The revenue raised a concern about the writ petition being filed beyond the statutory period but suggested directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the service tax amount, citing a precedent from this Court in a GST Act matter. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) was suo motu impleaded as the fourth respondent. The Court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within six weeks of receiving the order, subject to depositing 25% of the service tax. Upon compliance, the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal, admitting it without reference to the period of limitation, and pass orders in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's activity of collecting bus stand entrance fees, pursuant to a contract with the Trichy Municipality for the period April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2016, is covered under Sl.No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST, thereby exempting it from service tax? 2. Whether the impugned order levying service tax and penalty is illegal and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that their contract with the Municipality for collecting bus stand entrance fees was covered by Sl.No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST. They argued that their role was that of a contractor for the Municipal Corporation, rendering a service of collection and maintenance, and issuing fee receipts in the local authority's name. They asserted that this activity could not be termed a taxable service, making the impugned order illegal and without jurisdiction. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through the Central Government Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner's activity might not come within the ambit of Sl.No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the third respondent demanding service tax for the period from April 2016 to June 2017 and imposing penalty. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was running a Kalyana Mandapam, registered as a Mandap Keeper under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1964. It was submitted that Trichy Municipality floated a tender for a period of three years from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2016 for collection of fees for bays in bus stand(bus stand entrance fee) at Trichy Central Bus Stand. That the above contract is covered under Sl.No. 39 to the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 3. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a contractor of Municipal Corporation and renders service and issues fee receipts in the name of the local authority to the general public. The collection and maintenance work entrusted by the Municipality to the petitioner/contractor could not be termed as service. The impugned order levying tax is thus illegal and without juri iction. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent that the petitioner's activity may not come within the ambit under Sl.No.39 to the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 5. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the issue involves disputed question of fact, which requires detailed examination of facts, an exercise normally not undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek liberty of this Court to file a statutory appeal. 7.The learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent would submit that the writ petition is filed beyond the statutory period and that this Court may direct the petitioner to pay 25% of the service tax amount, as in the matters arising under 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis GST Act and would place reliance on the order of this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority namely, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), O/o. the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli is suo motu impleaded as the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition.
Taking into account the above submissions, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority/fourth respondent together with the deposit of 25% of the service tax, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On compliance of such condition, the Appellate Authority/fourth respondent shall 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis entertain the appeal by admitting the same without reference to the period of limitation and pass orders in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16.08.2024 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam Annexe, VI Floor, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Golden Rock Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation Trichy. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy -1 Division No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620 001. 4.The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), O/o. the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Ns and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6761 and 6764 of 2024 16.08.2024 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.