Remanded

Gulf Haj and Umrah Service v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/8476/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a service tax demand and penalty imposed by the Delhi Commissionerate, including turnover assessed by the Lucknow Commissionerate. The respondent accepted that the demand was premature. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for afresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.09.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh.

Gulf Haj and Umrah Service Vs Additional Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8476/2024 and CM APPL. 34914/2024 (Stay)

¶4

GULF HAJ AND UMRAH SERVICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaura Gupta and Mr. Deepanshu Saini, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Sr. SC along with Mr. Samyak Jain, Ms. Drishti Saraf and Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

O R D E R % 22.08.2024

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter - alia impugning an order dated 16.09.2022 whereby the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to ₹71,88,085/- and also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount that is ₹71,88,085/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for wilful suppression of the service tax liability.

¶11

It is the petitioner’s case that it was registered for the levy of service tax for rendering ‘Tour Operator Services’ in two jurisdictions: Service Tax Commissionerate Delhi – I (vide STC No.AASPUI229MSD001) and Service Tax Commissoinerate, Lucknow (vide STC No. AASPU1229MSD002).

¶12

The petitioner states that its turnover pertaining to the Lucknow Commissionerate, is held to be exempt from the service tax in terms of an order dated 21.03.2016. The petitioner claims that it is carrying on services

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2024 at 12:32:04

¶14

of arranging tours for Haj and Umrah and the same is being considered as exempted services by the Lucknow Commissionerate. However, the respondent (Service Tax Commissionerate Delhi – I) appears to have taken a different view and have now raised a demand for service tax pertaining to such services rendered by the petitioner during the relevant period.

¶15

In terms of the impugned order dated 16.09.2022, the petitioner’s liability has been assessed on a best judgment basis. It is the petitioner’s case that the same also includes the turnover pertaining to the Lucknow Commissionerate, which was the subject matter of adjudication by the Lucknow Commissionerate.

¶16

According to the petitioner, the services of arranging tours for Haj and Umrah are exempted services, however, notwithstanding the contrary view, the Delhi Commissionerate could not have passed an order including the turnover covered under the Lucknow Commissionerate.

¶17

The present petition was listed on 30.07.2024. The learned counsel for the respondent had accepted notice and sought time to obtain instructions. She has since obtained instructions and submits that the demand raised includes the petitioner’s turnover which is subject matter of assessment by the Lucknow Commissionerate. She fairly states that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh.

¶18

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh.

¶19

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved and nothing stated in this order should be constructed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy whether the petitioner is liable to pay service tax on its turnover or any penalty under Section 78 of

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2024 at 12:32:04

¶22

the Finance Act, 1994.

¶23

The present petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶25

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶26

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶27

AUGUST 22, 2024/ cl

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2024 at 12:32:04

Gulf Haj and Umrah Service v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulf Haj and Umrah Service v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication

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

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Container Corporation of India Limited Vs M/S Shivalaya Construction Company Private Limited & Anr.

Suresh Chand Gupta Proprietor of Gupta and Associates Vs Union of India and Ors.

Green Light Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs Preetendra Singh Aulakh

Shree Shyam Polychem through Its Proprietor Aman Garg HUF Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Another

Ravi Vs Avato Ward 84 State Goods and Services Tax and Anr.