M/S. Sharp Security Services vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court noted that the question of whether there was a valid service or a completed service is essentially a question of fact. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal, which was not objected to by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks of receiving the order. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal without reference to limitation, provided all other conditions for filing an appeal were met, and to pass orders in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the jurisdictional or constitutional issues raised.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sharp Security Services, a partnership firm providing security services, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy I Division, dated 29.06.2022. These orders pertained to the tax periods from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018. The petitioner contended that the services rendered were liable to tax on a reverse charge basis from July 1, 2012, as per specific notifications. The petitioner also claimed they were not served with any notice or the impugned orders. The core of the dispute revolves around the classification and taxability of the security services provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the second respondent lack jurisdiction due to contravention of Section 37C of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the erstwhile Finance Act, 1994, and Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994? 2. Whether the impugned orders violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction, contravening Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. They asserted that the security services provided were subject to reverse charge mechanism from July 1, 2012, as per Notification No. 30/12 – ST and Notification No. 45/12 – ST. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed non-receipt of any notice or the orders themselves, violating constitutional principles of natural justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the jurisdiction or constitutional validity of the orders. However, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents did not object to the petitioner's request to file an appeal.