P.Anuradha vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioners, registered Class I Contractors with the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu, filed writ petitions challenging communications dated November 10, 2017, issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sivagangai range. These communications demanded payment of certain sums towards service tax dues. The petitioners are aggrieved by these demands and seek to quash the impugned orders. The dispute pertains to service tax liability for construction services provided by the petitioners.
Held
The Court held that the services provided by the writ petitioners, which involved the construction of roads and bridges for use by the general public, were indeed exempt from service tax. This decision was based on Government of India Notification No. 25 of 2012, dated June 20, 2012. The Court noted that this notification was issued with retrospective effect, covering the period from 2005-2006. Consequently, the impugned communications demanding service tax were found to be liable for quashing. The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders. The ratio decidendi is that retrospective exemption notifications, when applicable, must be given effect to, and demands raised contrary to such exemptions are illegal. The operative direction was to quash the impugned orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the services provided by the writ petitioners, being construction of roads and bridges for use by the general public, are exempt from service tax levy under Notification No. 25 of 2012 dated June 20, 2012? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Government of India Notification No. 25 of 2012, dated June 20, 2012, explicitly exempts services provided by way of construction, erection, or alteration of roads, bridges, and terminals for transportation for use by the general public from the levy of service tax. This notification was issued with retrospective effect, covering the period from 2005-2006. Therefore, the impugned demands for service tax are unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents (revenue).
Sections Cited
Notification No. 25 of 2012
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)Nos.23359 & 23360 of 2017 and WMP(MD)Nos.19628 & 19629 of 2017 P.Anuradha ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23359 of 2017 K.R.Raja
... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.23360 of 2017 Vs.
Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, Bibikulam, Madurai.
The Superintendent of Central Excise, Office of the Superintendent Central GST and Central Excise, Sivagangai range, 175-1, Gandhi Road, Sivagangai. ... Respondents in both writ petitions. Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned orders of the third respondent in OC.Nos.173 & 174 of 2017 dated 10.11.2017 and quash the same. For Petitioner in both writ petitions : Mr.J.Anandhakumar For Respondents
in both writ petitions : Mr.V.Kathirvel, Assistant Solicitor General of India Assisted by Mr.C.Nandagopal for R1
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.