Locus standi to intervene in service tax appeals requires a direct legal interest, not merely indirect impact.

A third party whose liability may be only indirectly affected by a service tax appeal does not acquire locus standi to intervene merely on that basis. The Tribunal treated the dispute as one between the Revenue and the service provider on taxability and classification of the service, and followed Supreme Court guidance that absence of notice to the third party and the direct liability of the noticee do not create a right of impleadment. The application for intervention was therefore held not maintainable and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant had locus standi to be impleaded as an intervener in the service tax appeals concerning classification of the taxable service.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the dispute before it was between the Revenue and the service provider on the taxability and classification of the service. It applied the principle that a third party, whose liability may only be indirectly affected by the result of the appeal, does not by that reason alone acquire a right to intervene. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court decision holding that absence of notice to such a third party and the direct liability of the noticee do not confer locus standi to intervene.

Conclusion: The application for impleadment as intervener was not maintainable and was rejected.

---