Dismissed

M/S. a. a. Auctioneers and Contractors Private Limited v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2014WP/5122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the writ petition challenging letters demanding payment of service tax under a work order contract. Noting that service tax authorities were not parties and the contract mandated payment, the Court held no case for interference, expressly reserving adjudication on the merits of service tax liability.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected with no interference granted, pending on the terms of the contract.

M/S. a. a. Auctioneers and Contractors… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2013-5122

¶2

vsp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5122 OF 2013

¶5

M/s.A.A.Auctioneers & Contractors Private Limited

¶6

vs.

¶7

City and Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra Limited and Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.A.B.Ketkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 6TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶12

Petitioner.

¶13

2] The challenge in this Petition is to the letters dated 16^th May,2013 and 3^rd June,2013 vide Exhibits-R and S addressed to the Petitioner by the Transportation Engineer of the first Respondent-the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short “CIDCO”) by which the Petitioner was called upon to pay service tax.

1/4

2013-5122

vsp

Work order dated 30^th August,2012 was issued to the petitioner by the CIDCO appointing the Petitioner as an Agent for a period of three years for operation of Pay and Park systems of Fore Court area of Vashi Railway station.

¶18

3] Important terms and conditions were set out in the Appendix-I to the work order. Clause 5 thereof reads thus:

¶19

“During the contract period, in addition to the financial offer quoted, the agency shall pay service tax (existing service tax is 12.36%) applicable on each financial year on the financial offer quoted)”

¶20

4] By the first impugned communication, the first Respondent informed the Petitioner that, Pay and Park services are liable to service tax and that the clause in the agreement regarding the payment of the service tax cannot be relaxed. A request was made to the Petitioner to pay the service tax at the earliest.

¶21

5] Second impugned communication dated 3^rd June,2013 is addressed by the first Respondent informing the Petitioner that, if the Petitioner fails to pay the service tax, action will be initiated to recover the same from Security Deposit as per terms and conditions of the contract.

2/4

2013-5122

vsp

6] We must note here that, the Petitioner has filed two undertakings on record dated 5^th December,2013 and 21^st January,2014. In the undertakings, the Petitioner has stated that in the event of a demand of service tax, the Petitioner will pay the same.

¶26

7] The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the liability of payment of service tax is not attracted. We find that in this Petition, the authorities under the service tax are not the parties and only the CIDCO and its officer are parties. Therefore, the issue regarding the liability to pay the service tax on Pay and Park service cannot be gone into, in this petition.

¶27

8] Suffice it to say that, under the contract which binds the Petitioner, there is a specific condition No.5 under which the Petitioner is under an obligation to pay service tax.

¶28

9] We must also note here that, the Petitioner has admittedly obtained registration under the service tax way back on 9^th April,2009.

3/4

2013-5122

vsp

10] Considering the condition in the contract which the Petitioner has accepted, no case for interference is made out with the impugned communications. Hence, no interference is called for in this petition.

¶33

11] We must make it clear that, we have not made any adjudication on merits of the claim made by the Petitioner regarding the right of the concerned authorities of the State to levy service tax.

¶34

12] Subject to what is observed earlier, the Petition is rejected.

¶35

4/4

M/S. a. a. Auctioneers and Contractors Private Limited v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. a. a. Auctioneers and Contractors Private Limited v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Vs Vithu Balu Hajam and Ors.

Dhondu Dadunath Gosavi (Since Decd, through Legal Heirs) Shri. Kacharu Dhondu Gosavi and Anr. Vs the Deputy Collector (Acquisition), Vaiterna Jal Vidyut Project, Nashik and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Punjaji Tidke and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation, Nashik and Ors.

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (Decd) and Ors. Vs Mrs. Chitra Pratapsinh Bhosale and Ors.

Shri. Nandkumar Vasant Deshpande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Mr. Ratan Manoranjan Uma Bose Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.