Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality, Commissioner, Krishnagiri Municipality, Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai Municipality Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai – III, Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry – 2018 (9) TMI 1142 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Levy of service tax – renting of immovable properties such as commercial complex, shops, lands etc. to various parties – Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court has found it proper to defer decisions in these matters awaiting the judgment of the nine Judge Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority and Others [2011 (3) TMI 1554 – SUPREME COURT] – in the interests of justice, all these appeals should be kept in abeyance pending the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all the three cases referred to supra, namely UTV News Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 1367 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 13 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Ritika Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (12) TM
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sions of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Today, when the matters came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, ld. Counsel Shri G. Natarajan, draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. UTV News Ltd. – 2018 (13) GSTL 3 (SC) wherein the question that was considered was whether levy of service tax under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act is within the Legislative competence of Union Parliament. The Hon ble Supreme Court took note that the very issue of legislative competence is pending before a nine Judge Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court on a reference made in Mineral Area Development Authority and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. – (2011) 4 SCC 450; that in view thereof, the Hon ble Supreme Court has opined that the matter should await the decision of the said nine Judge Bench. He also points out that the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. Vs. Union of India – 2011 (24) STR 129 (Del.) whi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eme Court has clearly mentioned that insofar as future liability towards service tax with effect from 1.10.2010 is concerned, there is no stay. In response to the request made by the ld. Counsel for deferring the decisions in these appeals, they leave the matter to the Bench. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 The ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. (supra) and Ritika Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been consistently followed by this Bench in all our recent decisions. No doubt, appeals against these judgments have been admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 14.10.2011 and 16.12.2011 respectively. However, as pointed out by ld. ARs, there is no stay on operation of these judgments. 5.2 Nonetheless, it cannot be ignored that in a subsequent development, vide their order dated 5.4.2018 in the matter relating to UTV News Ltd. and others (supra) relied by the ld. Counsel, the Hon ble Supreme Court has gone into the question whether levy of service tax under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ompetence to enact the particular provision in the Finance Act, 1994. At this stage, we are unable to take the said view as has been advanced before us on behalf of the individual Assessees. However, the arguments advanced may indicate that even if there is no direct nexus there may be an indirect one. Whether such indirect connection or relation would be of any relevance to decide the issue of legislative competence appears to be pending before a nine judges Bench of this Court on a reference made in an order in Mineral Area Development Authority and Others v. Steel Authority of India and Others – (2011) 4 SCC 450. The questions referred are extracted below: 1. Having heard the matter(s) for considerable length of time, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by a Bench of nine Judges. The questions of law to be decided by the larger Bench are as follows: 1. Whether royalty determined under Sections 9/15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
II Entry 50? 4. What is the true nature of royalty/dead rent payable on minerals produced/mined/extracted from mines? 5. Whether the majority decision in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [(2004) 10 SCC 201] could be read as departing from the law laid down in the seven-Judge Bench decision in India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(1990) 1 SCC 12]? 6. Whether taxes on lands and buildings in List II Entry 49 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution contemplate a tax levied directly on the land as a unit having definite relationship with the land? 7. What is the scope of the expression taxes on mineral rights in List II Entry 50 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution? 8. Whether the expression subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development in List II Entry 50 refers to the subject-matter in List I Entry 54 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution? 9. Whether List II Entry 50 read with List I Entry 54 of the Seventh Schedule to the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the taxing power of the State Legislature has been subjected to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development ?. 2. Before concluding, we may clarify that normally the Bench of five Learned Judges in case of doubt has to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger coram than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration (see Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673: 2005 SCC (L&S) 246: 2005 SCC (Cri) 546]. However, in the present case, since prima facie there appears to be some conflict between the decision of this Court in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [(2004) 10 SCC 201] which decision has been delivered by a Bench of five Judges of this Court and the decision delivered by a seven-judge Bench of this Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(1990) 1 SCC 12], reference to the Bench of nine Judges is requested. T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o supra, namely UTV News Ltd. (supra), Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. (supra) and Ritika Pvt. Ltd. (supra), since the final outcome therein will have a translational impact and affect the decision in all such matters as covered in these appeals. 6. We, therefore, hold that it would be appropriate and prudent to close the files in respect of all these appeals for the purpose of statistics. So ordered. We, however make it clear that the appeal number and year already assigned to these cases shall remain unchanged, that any interim / stay order passed earlier in these cases shall continue on record and that the matters are closed only for statistical purpose. In this regard, we also draw sustenance from Tribunal s Larger Bench decision vide Final Order No. A/10843/2018 dated 26.4.2018 in the case of Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs. CST, Ahmedabad. Both sides are at liberty to file application before the Tribunal to reopen the matter pursuant to the outcome of the aforesai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =