Writ petition seeking service tax reimbursement dismissed by High Court - parties directed to pursue civil remedies

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking reimbursement of service tax from the respondent/DDA. The court found that the agreement between the parties did not establish the liability of the respondent to pay the service tax as claimed by the petitioner. Emphasizing the presence of substantial disputed facts requiring detailed evidence, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed amount and suggested pursuing alternative civil remedies. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, with the court concluding that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not applicable for the recovery of the service tax amount in this case.

---

---

In a High Court judgment, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondent/DDA to reimburse the service tax deposited by the petitioner and not to discriminate against the petitioner. The petitioner requested reimbursement of Rs. 60,19,872 on account of service tax, which was declined by the DDA on the basis of their agreement with M/s. Brahmputra Infrastructure Ltd. The petitioner argued that the correspondence between the parties, specifically a letter dated 17th September, 2007, stipulated that service tax should be payable to the petitioner by the respondent. However, the court found that the agreement between the parties did not stipulate the liability of the respondent to pay the service tax, and the letter dated 28th July, 2007, on which the petitioner relied, did not admit the liability of the DDA to pay the service tax. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed amount of service tax from the respondent. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could pursue other civil remedies if available, and left the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment emphasized that the disputes between the parties involved substantial disputed questions of facts which could not be resolved without detailed evidence and cross-examination. The court highlighted that the petitioner could not invoke the remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for recovery of the service tax amount in the given circumstances.

---