Syed Anvarullah Husainy, (M&H Contractors Addagurukki), Indian Oil Service Station COCO, J.R. Karthikeyan, (M&H Contractors Royakottah), Versus The General Manager, (Retail Sales), The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, The Superintendent of Central Tax, O/o the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Hosur, Krishnagiri District
Service Tax
2017 (11) TMI 1630 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-11-2017
W.P. Nos.25403 & 25404 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.26849 & 26850 of 2017
Service Tax
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Doraisamy
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Ravi , Mr. V. Sudareswaran
COMMON O R D E R
Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.R.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd Respondent. By consent on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2.The
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ndian Oil Corporation will not be liable to pay any amount on account of Service Tax on commission received by the petitioners and they were directed to deposit the same with the Service Tax Department from the amount of commission paid to the petitioners.
3.The petitioners have challenged the said communications in these writ petitions on the primary ground that it violates the Policy Circular No.240-04/2016 dated 20.04.2016. The said Circular reads as follows:
Sub: Service Provider for operation of Permanent COCOs -Applicability of Service Tax.
As per prevailing Service Tax Law, Service tax would be applicable on all payments/reimbursements to the Service provider for COCO operation except reimbursements to the Service Provider in the capacity of pure agent where contractual obligation/bills are in the name of IOC.
In view of the above, it is clarified that applicable Service Tax charged by the COCO operator/Service Provider be reimbursed by IOC at actual against Service Tax i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e may be set aside. With regard to the consequential relief sought for by the petitioners, it is submitted that the same is premature. Apart from that, the petitioners cannot seek for a direction to the Indian Oil Corporation to pay the service tax directly to the 3rd respondent as even in terms of the Policy Circular. It is only a case of reimbursement in accordance with the Policy Circular and the question of payment of service tax by the Indian Oil Corporation directly to the 3rd respondent does not arise.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioners have sought for a prayer to direct the Indian Oil Corporation to directly remit the service tax to the 3rd respondent, the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the service tax demanded and submit their reimbursement claim to the 2nd respondent, which may be directed to be considered in accordance with the Policy Circular dated 20.04.2016.
7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =