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 – 2017 (11) TMI 1630 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Service Tax on commission received – Contract for Maintenance and Handling Agreement – Policy Circular dated 20.04.2016 – Held that: – Writ Petitions are partly allowed and the impugned communications dated 12.10.2016 26.10.2016 are set aside with a direction to the petitioners to pay service tax as demanded by the 3rd respondent and after payment, produce the invoice to the 2nd respondent for reimbursement, which shall be considered by the 2nd respondent strictly in accordance with Policy Circular No.240-04/2016 dated 20.04.2016 – petition allowed in part. – W.P. Nos.2540
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
alling upon the petitioners to provide all details of the commission received by them from the Indian Oil corporation and pay service tax. The petitioners immediately addressed the 2nd respondent on 26.09.2016 and 24.10.2016 respectively and sought for their advise. The 2nd Respondent, by the impugned communications dated 12.10.2016 and 26.10.2016, by referring to Clause 28 of the Contract for Maintenance and Handling Agreement, stated that the commission paid to the petitioners includes all taxes and Indian 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rcular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation and therefore, the impugned communications have to be set aside and the Indian Oil Corporation should be directed to deposit the service tax amount to the 3rd respondent. 5.The learned standing counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation, on instruction, would submit that the impugned communications dated 12.10.2016 and 26.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent have been issued without noticing the Policy Circular and therefore submits that the same 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 do
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =