Muzaffer Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer Versus The Government of India, The Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), O\/o the Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai
Service Tax
2017 (12) TMI 685 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-11-2017
Writ Petition Nos.31155 to 31165 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.34200 to 34210 of 2017 WP.No.31155 of 2017
Service Tax
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
\nFor the Petitioners : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, SC for M\/s.Ajmal Associates
\nFor the Union : Mr.K.Raju, CGSC
\nFor the Department : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, SPC
\nORDER
\nMr.K.Raju, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice for the Union. Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the Department. As the issue raised in these writ petitions is identical, all the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal.
\n2. The petitioners seek for the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the second respondent from holding any enquiry or <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n \/ customers along with full address and details of foreign exchange inward and outward remittances. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ]. It is submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court declared Rules 6A(1) read with 6A(2) of the Service Tax Rules in so far as they seek to describe export of tour operator services to include non taxable services provided by tour operators, ultra vires the Finance Act and in particular, Section 94(2)(f) of the Finance Act and are invalid. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n out doing so, the second respondent cannot be prohibited from exercising his statutory powers. It is submitted that the decision in the case of Indian Association of Tour Operators would not apply, as it only pertains to the services provided by the Indian tour operators to foreign tourists during the period from 01.7.2012 to 01.7.2017, which has been paid in convertible foreign exchange, would not be amenable to service tax. It is further submitted that it is not known as to whether the Revenue has preferred any appeal as against the said decision. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n om that, the petitioners rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Association of Tour Operators. Even to examine this aspect, necessarily an adjudication process has to be carried out, in which, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to explain as to the applicability of the said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Muzaffer Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer Versus The Government of India, The Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), O\/o the Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, ChennaiService Tax2017 (12) TMI 685 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 30-11-2017Writ Petition Nos.31155 to 31165 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.34200 to 34210 of 2017 WP.No.31155 of 2017 Service … Continue reading “Muzaffer Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer Versus The Government of India, The Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), O\/o the Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The details called for are common to all the petitioners. One more common feature in all these writ petitions is that all of them registered themselves under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for providing tour operator services and\/or travel agent services. The reason for approaching this Court by way of these writ petitions is on the strength of the Exemption Notification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) dated 30.10.2009 in Circular No.117\/11\/2009-ST and the CBEC's Notification No.17\/2014 dated 20.8.2014.
\n4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by Notification dated 30.10.2009, the CBEC clarified that service tax is not chargeable on the services provided in respect the tour undertaken for carrying out Haj and Umra pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia by Indian pilgrims considering the same a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in the said decision, it was held that Section 94(2)(f) or (hhh) of the Finance Act does not empower the Central Government to decide taxability of the tour operator services provided outside the taxable territory and it only enables the Central Government to determine what constitutes export of service, the date for determination of the rate of service or the place of provision of taxable service. It is also submitted that the Delhi High Court took note of the decision rendered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Cox & Kings India Limited Vs.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that a Writ of Prohibition at this stage would be premature, as the petitioners, who are all registered under the provisions of the Finance Act and are rendering tour operator services and\/or travel agent services, are bound to produce the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n12. For all the above reasons, the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, are sustained and in the result, it is held that the writ petitions are premature. This Court does not wish to express anything on the merits of the matter and it is made clear that a decision would be taken by the second respondent in accordance with law after perusal of the documents produced by the petitioners. It is reiterated that on production of the records, the second respondent shall examine as to what are the types of services rendered by the petitioners and i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n