Single Bench dismissed three writ petitions challenging the retrospective validity of amendments to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court upheld the amendments as clarificatory based on High Court precedents.
Writ petitions dismissed without costs.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Writ Petition Nos. 21750 of 2010, 176 and 10209 of 2011 and 13633 of 2010
Dated: 18-02-2013
Between: M/s Cyber Towers, rep. by its Partner Mohd. Noor Ul Haq and another And Union of India, Ministry of Finance, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi and others
…Petitioners
…Respondents.
Common order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
The petitioners are service providers, who have been either subjected to initiation of proceedings for levy and collection of service tax; or apprehend proceedings for such levy and collection and have therefore filed these writ petitions as a prophylactic. The challenge in the writ petitions is to provisions of Section 65 (90a), 65 (105)(zzzz) read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by the Finance Act, 2007; the Finance Act, 2008; and the Finance Act, 2010. By the Finance Act, 2010, inter alia provisions of Section 65 (105)(zzzz) were amended with retrospective effect from 1-6-2007 ex abundanti cautela, as a clarificatory measure.
Several High Courts vide Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. V. Union of India[1] , Utkal Builders Ltd. V. Union of India[2] , Cinemax India Ltd. V. Union of India[3] , Retailers Association of India v. Union of India[4] and Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. V. Union of India[5] , have considered the validity including of the retrospective reach given by the Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 65 (105)(zzzz) and have upheld the provisions. Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the last reported judgment has also over-ruled its earlier judgment in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd v. Union of India, reported in 237 ELT 209 and has consequently declared the retrospective amendment to the provisions of Section 65 (105)(zzzz) to be clarificatory and ex abundanti cautela in nature.
We are in respectful agreement with the view and conclusions and the rationes set out in the several judgments supra. Accordingly
and for the aforesaid reasons, the challenge in these writ petitions must fail and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs.
_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
18th February, 2013
_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J GRR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the retrospective amendment to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 is unconstitutional.
Whether the challenge to the levy of service tax under the Finance Act, 2010 succeeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2010 (20) STR 737 (P&H)
Utkal Builders Ltd. v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2011 (22) STR 257 (Ori.)
Cinemax India Ltd. v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2011-TIOL-535-HC-AHM-ST
Retailers Association of India v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2011-TIOL-523-HC-MUM-ST
Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
2011_TIOL-610-HC-DEL-ST-LB
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Cyber Towers
Union of India
Goda Raghuram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
