2019 (11) TMI 1014 - HC - Service Tax

High Court remands service tax liability matter to CESTAT for fresh consideration. Appeal to be expedited.

M/s. L.R. Sharma & Co. Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi

The High Court remanded the matter back to the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for a fresh consideration regarding the liability of ... Remittance of case to CESTAT - service tax for the work of shifting and laying of the water pipelines for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation - Composite Contract - whether the matter ought not be remitted to the CESTAT for a fresh consideration of the appeal before it? HELD THAT:- The Court is of the view that the matter ought to be remanded to the CESTAT for a fresh consideration of the department’s appeal. It is pointed out by Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the Appellant that all the relevant documents, including the contract in question, were already produced in the enquiry prior to the issuance of the SCN and was already available with the department. Since the enquiry in the matter started in 2007, we request the CESTAT to dispose of the appeal at the earliest convenience, and preferably within six months from the date fixed by this Court for listing of the appeal before it for directions. Impugned order set aside - appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Whether the matter should be remitted to the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for a fresh consideration of the appeal.Analysis:The High Court issued notice limited to the question of whether the matter should be remitted to CESTAT for a fresh consideration. The appeal before CESTAT involved the liability of the Appellant to pay service tax for work done for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The Appellant argued that the service tax levy was invalid due to the nature of the contract being composite, citing relevant judgments. The CESTAT had earlier remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority due to the non-production of relevant agreements. The Court decided to remand the matter back to CESTAT for a fresh consideration. The Appellant had already produced all relevant documents during the initial enquiry, and the department assured the production of documents relied upon by them. The Court directed CESTAT to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date set for listing the appeal for directions.The Court set aside the impugned orders of CESTAT and listed the department's appeal for directions on a specific date. The appeal was disposed of without any costs.