TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court annuls impugned communications, orders service tax payment. Reimbursement to follow Policy Circular. Case closed.</h1> <h3>Syed Anvarullah Husainy, (M&H Contractors Addagurukki), Indian Oil Service Station COCO, J.R. Karthikeyan, (M&H Contractors Royakottah), Versus The General Manager, (Retail Sales), The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, The Superintendent of Central Tax, O/o the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Hosur, Krishnagiri District</h3> Syed Anvarullah Husainy, (M&H Contractors Addagurukki), Indian Oil Service Station COCO, J.R. Karthikeyan, (M&H Contractors Royakottah), Versus The ... Issues:1. Interpretation of Policy Circular No.240-04/2016 regarding service tax reimbursement.2. Validity of communications issued by the 2nd respondent.3. Obligations of Indian Oil Corporation in reimbursing service tax.4. Relief sought by the petitioners regarding service tax payment.Analysis:1. The petitioners contested the communications from the 2nd respondent, arguing that it contravened Policy Circular No.240-04/2016. The circular specified that service tax reimbursement should be facilitated by Indian Oil Corporation for COCO operation payments, except for reimbursements to the service provider acting as a pure agent with contractual obligations in the name of IOC.2. The petitioners maintained that the impugned communications disregarded the Policy Circular's guidelines, which necessitated Indian Oil Corporation to reimburse applicable service tax charged by the COCO operator or service provider. Consequently, they sought to invalidate the communications and compel Indian Oil Corporation to remit the service tax amount to the 3rd respondent.3. The learned standing counsel representing Indian Oil Corporation acknowledged the oversight in issuing the communications without considering the Policy Circular. They agreed to set aside the communications and admitted that the petitioners' demand for direct payment of service tax to the 3rd respondent was premature. The standing counsel clarified that the Policy Circular mandated reimbursement, not direct payment by Indian Oil Corporation.4. The judgment partially favored the petitioners by annulling the impugned communications and instructing them to pay the service tax as demanded by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the petitioners were directed to submit the invoice to the 2nd respondent for reimbursement, which would be evaluated in compliance with Policy Circular No.240-04/2016. The court emphasized that reimbursement consideration should occur within three weeks of the reimbursement application submission, with no additional costs incurred. The case was concluded, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
