Dismissed

Commissioner of Service Tax DELHI-1 v. Bird Travels Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC22 May 2017SERTA/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Commissioner of Service Tax's appeal challenging the classification of Bird Travels' services as export services. Relying on the CEAC order in Amadeus India and the Ernst & Young judgment, the Court held the appeal non-maintainable, directing the appellant to approach the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994. A separate order condoned filing d

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability; the appellant was directed to approach the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994. Delay applications were also dispose

Commissioner of Service Tax DELHI-1 Vs Bird Travels Pvt… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 46. + SERTA 2/2017

¶3

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Jain, Standing Counsel.

¶4

versus

¶5

BIRD TRAVELS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

¶7

O R D E R % 22.05.2017

¶8

CM No. 19452/2017 (for exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

CM No. 19453/2017 (for condonation of delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal)

¶11

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

¶12

CM No. 19451/2017 (for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal)

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

Page 1 of 3

SERTA 2/2017

SERTA 2/2017

Mr. Mayank Nagi, learned counsel for the Respondent, points out that the question sought to be urged in the present appeal is one pertaining to classification of the services rendered by the Respondent. It is the case of the Appellant that it is „business auxiliary services‟. The CESTAT has in the impugned order accepted the case of the Respondent Assessee that it is a case of export of services and, therefore, exempt from payment of service tax during the relevant period.

¶18

This Court by order dated 14^th July, 2015 passed in CEAC 4/2015 ( Commissioner of Service Tax v. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. ) held that “the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment” would be covered by Section 35 L of the Finance Act, 1994 („Act‟) and the appeal in such case from an order of the CESTAT would lie directly to the Supreme Court. The Court in that order referred to its decision in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst & Young Private Limited 2014 (34) STR 3 (Del) .

¶19

Learned counsel for the Respondent points out that the appeals filed by the Service Tax Department against the decision in Ernst & Young Private Limited ( supra ) are pending in the Supreme Court.

¶20

Consequently, the Court dismisses this appeal on the ground of maintainability. It will be open to the Appellant to seek the remedy of an appeal under Section 35L of the Act before the Supreme Court in

Page 2 of 3

SERTA 2/2017

accordance with law.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J

MAY 22, 2017