The court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Aircel Limited challenging sales tax and service tax levies with no representation from the petitioner present on the hearing date.
Writ petitions dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 13.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
WP.Nos.35485 & 35486 of 2003 and WP.MP.No.43148 of 2003
Aircel Limited, No.13, IInd Cross, Anna Nagar, Ajeetraj Building, Pondicherry - 605006. ...Petitioner in both the WPs Vs 1. The Commercial Tax Officer - II, Pondicherry. 2. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Pondicherry. 3. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi. ...Respondents in both the WPs PRAYER in WP.No.35485 of 2003: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the respondent Union Territory of Pondicherry is incompetent to legislate for and impose a sales tax under any power conferred under Serial No.54, List II of the Seventh schedule to the Constitution of India on the Tariff collected by the petitioner herein for providing cellular mobile telephone service by virtue of the licence issued to the petitioner herein by the Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication, Government of India under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 whether by way of rental or call revenue (airtime charges), by way of prepaid or postpaid subscription, SIM card charges, Enrollment Fee, Activation and Processing Fee, Roaming Charges and other Value Added Services, Viz., (a) Caller Line Identification Presentation (CLIP); (b) Multi Party Conferencing; (c) Fax or SMS; (d) Voice Mail; (e) Data Facility;
(f) Call Hold; and (g) Call Wait, either retrospectively or currently or thereafter, and the provisions of Section 3A, Section 2(p)(iv) and Section 2(h) authorising such assessments and demands for tax or penalty under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, are ultra vires Articles 264, 269(3), 286, 301 and 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, and unconstitutional violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.
PRAYER in WP.No.35486 of 2003: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Union of India, its officers and agents to forbear from levying or collecting service tax from the petitioner herein under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of any element of goods legislated for sales tax levy under Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution of India, read with Serial No.54, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and involved in providing telephone services to the subscribers under the licence granted to the petitioner herein, under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
When these matters were listed on 06.02.2019, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matters came to be listed today, under the caption 'for dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
hvk
To
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Aircel Limited
The Commercial Tax Officer - II, Pondicherry
The Union Territory of Pondicherry
Union of India
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
