Allowed

M/s.Ootacamund Club v. The Principal Commissioner

Madras HC6 Jan 2022WP/11607/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition challenging a Statement of Demand for service tax imposed on the petitioner club. Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions holding such tax liability covered, the court quashed the demand and order meant for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Statement of Demand dated 25.03.2019 is quashed. The petitioner is relieved from obligations to reply or participate in the adjudication mechanism for the specified period. Connected miscellaneous

M/s.Ootacamund Club Vs The Principal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.11607 of 2019 and WMP.Nos.11846 & 11847 of 2019

¶6

[Video Conferencing]

¶7

M/s.Ootacamund Club Represented by its Secretary Mr.Oommen Abraham Post Box No.19, Club Road Udhagamandalam – 643001. ...Petitioner

¶8

-Vs.-

¶9

The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 6/7, A.T.D.Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641018.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer :-

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondent contained in its Statement of Demand bearing No.SL.NO.01/2019-ADC, dated 25.03.2019 and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and to consequently forbear the respondent from assessing the petitioner to service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act of 1994.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondent : Mr.R.Gunalan, Senior Standing Counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶16

2.The petitioner has challenged the statement of demand dated 25.03.2019 seeking to recover the service tax on the services provided by the petitioner under the category of

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

clubs/associations for the period between April 2016 to June 2017.

¶19

3.Though the petitioner is required to file a reply to the statement of demand and participate in the adjudication mechanism prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994, this Court is of the view that the issue is covered against the revenue in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited which has been followed by this Court in the petitioner's own case vide order dated 25.02.2020 in W.P.No.19638 of 2017. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:-

¶20

“3.The issue, as to whether the petitioner has liable to pay the service tax or not is now covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited, 2019 SCC Online SC 1291. For earlier periods between 01.10.2008 and 21.01.2014 and between 01.02.2014 and 31.03.2015, an order has been passed by this Court on 17.12.2019 in petitioner's own case in W.P.No.8246 of 2016 following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and Another Vs. Rachi Club Ltd, 2019 SCC Online SC 1291.

¶21

4.Therefore, the Writ Petition stands allowed in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal case (supra) and the decision of this Court in petitioner's own case in W.P.No.8246 of 2016. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

¶22

4.Since the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served in relegating the petitioner to file reply to the statement of demand. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed with consequential relief to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

pgp

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

To:

¶29

The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan, Advocate, S.R.No.1167 +1cc to Mr.R.Gunalan, Advocate, S.R.No.1198

¶31

W.P.No.11607 of 2019

¶32

UM(CO) SU(31/01/2022)

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Ootacamund Club v. The Principal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ootacamund Club v. The Principal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The executive Officer Vs The Superintendent (tech)

Mr.G.Ravichandran Vs The District Manager

M/s.Pagal Asso Vs Addl. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer GD-1

M/S.Ss Bright Steels Vs The Union of India

M/s.Bharath Traders Vs The Commercial Tax officer

P.Chinnasamy Vs The Assistant Garrison Engineer (1)