2022 (10) TMI 782 - HC - GST

Security Services Tax Amendment Validated, Petitioner's Challenge Redirected to Administrative Review for Further Examination

HC upheld the government's notification amendment regarding security services tax mechanism. The court directed the petitioner's challenge to be treated ... Validity of N/N. 29/2018, dated 31.12.2018 - by virtue of impugned notification, an amendment has been made to Notification No.13/2017 dated 28.06.2017 - amendment made qua Entry No.14, which has been inserted via Section 9(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - grievance is that while allowing for payment of service tax based on reverse-charge mechanism, body corporates have been excluded - HELD THAT:- At this stage, Mr Gaggar says that the petitioner-society would be satisfied if this Court were to direct that this writ petition is treated as representation to be dealt with by respondent nos.1 and 2 - there are no difficulty in disposing of the writ petition, on that basis. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to Notification No.29/2018 regarding amendment to Notification No.13/2017 related to security services under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered society, challenged Notification No.29/2018 issued by the Union of India, specifically focusing on the amendment made to Notification No.13/2017. The amendment pertained to Entry No.14 related to security services under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's grievance was that the amendment excluded smaller closely held body corporates from the reverse-charge mechanism for service tax payment.The petitioner's counsel argued that the amendment did not consider the circumstances of smaller body corporates. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the petition was not maintainable as it challenged a policy decision in the field of taxation. The respondent's counsel emphasized that the exclusion from the reverse-charge mechanism was a decision for the State authorities to make after considering various factors.Ultimately, the Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation to be dealt with by the concerned authorities, respondent nos.1 and 2. The Court highlighted that in taxation matters, the assessee should approach the Court directly, rather than through a third entity like a society. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the respondents to treat it as a representation and take appropriate action accordingly. As a result, the pending applications were closed.