2025 (11) TMI 1706 - HC - Service Tax

Service tax levy on full labour charges remanded for fresh decision under Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006

Shri. Sidram Bhuthappa Hirekurabar Versus Union of India Through Its Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, The Commissioner of Central GST And Central Excise (Appeals), Belagavi, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax And Central Excise, Belagavi.

HC dealt with levy of service tax on entire labour charges for April 2015-June 2017 without apportionment under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) ... Levy of service tax on the entire value of the labor charges for the period from April 2015 to June 2017 - non-apportionment/setoff as per the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The co-ordinate bench in M/S KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST [2024 (9) TMI 64 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], considering the entire spectrum of the law and issue held that 'Upon suggestion of the court, learned Additional Solicitor General has responded positively and has stated that a team of Officers who are competent to pass orders without reference to the territorial jurisdiction would be constituted and from amongst such team of officers designation would be made and cases allotted in order to pass necessary orders from the stage of post show-cause notice which would be done within a period of three months.' In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the coordinate bench and that the fact the petitioner is similarly placed, it is deemed appropriate to remit the matter back to respondent No. 3 –Authority. Petition allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the impugned order-in-appeal levying service tax on the entire value of labour charges for the period April 2015 to June 2017, without apportionment/set-off as per the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, could be sustained in light of the law laid down in an earlier co-ordinate bench decision. 1.2 Whether the matter was required to be remitted to the original authority for reconsideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice, with all contentions on merits kept open. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Sustainability of the impugned order-in-appeal levying service tax on entire labour charges without apportionment Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The petitioner contended that the controversy stood covered by a co-ordinate bench decision which had examined the 'entire spectrum of the law and issue' relating to similar service tax demands. 2.2 The Court noted that in the earlier decision, the co-ordinate bench had laid down guiding considerations for adjudicating such service tax disputes, including: (i) Whether the assessee qualifies as a 'service provider' under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) Whether the services fall within the negative list. (iii) Whether the services are covered by exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 28.06.2012 or any other applicable notification. (iv) Whether the person is liable to remit service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d) read with applicable notifications. (v) Whether the demands are barred by limitation in light of law laid down by the Supreme Court. 2.3 The respondents did not dispute the applicability of the legal position laid down in the co-ordinate bench judgment, but sought remand of the matter to the stage of submission of reply to the show cause notice. 2.4 The Court accepted that the petitioner was 'similarly placed' as the assessees in the earlier decision and held that the same approach of setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter from the stage of show cause notice should be adopted. Conclusions 2.5 The impugned order-in-appeal was quashed. 2.6 The question of levy of service tax on the entire value of labour charges and the claim for apportionment/set-off under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, was left to be re-examined by the original authority, applying the parameters indicated in the co-ordinate bench decision and in accordance with law. Issue 2 - Remand to original authority and stage of proceedings Interpretation and reasoning 2.7 Relying on the directions issued in the earlier co-ordinate bench judgment, the Court held that matters involving similar service tax issues should be relegated to the adjudicating authority from the stage of show cause notice. 2.8 The Court considered it appropriate to remit the matter to the respondent authority (original adjudicating authority) to enable the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice and to have the issues adjudicated afresh with reference to the legal tests framed by the co-ordinate bench. 2.9 The Court emphasised that it would be open to the authority to regulate its own procedure and to take the matter to its logical conclusion, while bearing in mind the earlier co-ordinate bench judgment. Conclusions 2.10 The writ petition was allowed; the matter was remitted to the original authority from the stage of reply to the show cause notice. 2.11 The petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from receipt of the order. 2.12 The original authority was directed to consider the reply and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, applying the principles and parameters indicated by the co-ordinate bench, with all procedural regulation left to the authority.