2013 (4) TMI 98 - HC - Service Tax

Directions on Service Tax Dispute Resolution: Detailed Representation Required Within Specified Time

S & S CONSTRUCTIONS Versus MP STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.

The court issued directions for the resolution of a dispute regarding liability for service tax payment in contract work. The petitioners were instructed ... Payment of service tax - Contract work performed by the petitioners - Petitioner entered into contract(s) with respondent No. 1 and had received a notice from respondent No. 2 for payment of service tax in respect of the work and same was contested by the petitioner stating that liability to make payment of tax is of respondent No. 1. Respondent no. 1 didn’t contest the demand but stated that petitioner has not disclosed the particulars in respect of which contract it requires decision and also notice issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and also stated that the petitioner may submit a fresh representation furnishing all the aforesaid details so that respondent No. 1 can decide the representation of the petitioner. Held that – Court held that petitioners may submit all the documents/representations as prayed to respondent No. 1. If for deciding the representation an opportunity of personal hearing is required to be extended to the petitioners, then respondent No. 1 shall extend such opportunity. Issues:1. Liability for payment of service tax in contract work performed.2. Disclosure of particulars in representation to respondent No. 1.3. Directions for submission of fresh representation and decision by respondent No. 1.Analysis:1. The petitions involved a dispute regarding the liability for payment of service tax towards contract work performed by the petitioners with respondent No. 1. The petitioners contended that they were not liable to make the payment, asserting that it was the responsibility of respondent No. 1. The petitioners submitted a legal notice to respondent No. 1 seeking a decision on the representation made. The court noted that the cases had identical issues and decided to issue a common order applicable to all petitions.2. Respondent No. 1 expressed willingness to consider and decide the petitioners' representation but highlighted that the petitioners had not provided specific details about the contract in question and the notice from respondent No. 2. It was emphasized that without these essential facts, respondent No. 1 could not make a factual decision. The court directed the petitioners to submit a fresh representation within two weeks, including all necessary particulars related to the contract and the relief sought.3. Consequently, the court issued directions for the resolution of the matter. The petitioners were instructed to submit a comprehensive representation with full particulars to respondent No. 1 within the specified timeline, along with sending an advance copy by speed post. Upon receiving the representation, respondent No. 1 was mandated to consider and decide it through a reasoned, speaking order within 60 days. If a personal hearing was deemed necessary, respondent No. 1 was directed to provide such an opportunity to the petitioners. The decision was to be communicated promptly to the petitioners via registered A.D. mode. The petitions were disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.This judgment clarified the responsibilities regarding service tax payment in contract work, emphasized the importance of providing detailed particulars in representations, and outlined a structured process for resolving the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 1.