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>Petition challenging payment rejection dismissed due to contract covering all taxes.</h1> <h3>Malwa Engineering Works Versus The Union of India And Others</h3> Malwa Engineering Works Versus The Union of India And Others - 2017 (49) S.T.R. 15 (P&H) Issues:Impugning order rejecting payment representation - Service tax exemption issue - Entitlement to payment of service tax amountImpugning Order Rejecting Payment Representation:The petitioner approached the court challenging the order by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation rejecting the representation seeking payment of a specific amount. The petitioner had been awarded a contract for waste lifting services, and the issue arose regarding the payment of service tax component included in the contract amount.Service Tax Exemption Issue:The contract between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation included all taxes and levies, including service tax. However, a notification exempting the service from service tax was issued after the contract was awarded. The Municipal Corporation, unaware of the exemption, continued to deduct the service tax component from the payment to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the full amount without any deductions based on the subsequent exemption.Entitlement to Payment of Service Tax Amount:The petitioner argued that since the service was exempted from service tax, they should receive the full contract amount without any deductions. The Municipal Corporation contended that the petitioner should not be unjustly enriched by receiving the service tax component back as it was meant for deposit with the tax department. The court held that once the contract amount included all taxes and levies, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the service tax amount back from the Municipal Corporation.The court noted that the service tax was leviable when the contract was awarded, and the contract amount included all applicable taxes. Even though the service became exempt from tax later, the petitioner was not entitled to claim back the service tax component as it was part of the original contract price. The court dismissed the petition, stating that if the petitioner were to receive the service tax amount, they would be unjustly enriched as it was meant for payment to the tax department.
TaxTMI 