TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[Judgment per : A.K. Sikri, ACJ]. - Of these petitions being listed together, some have been transferred to this Court under orders of the Apex Court. After hearing the counsels for the parties, we find that all the petitions can be disposed of by this common order. 2. Each of the petitioners has entered into an agreement with the respondent Airports Authority of India (AAI). The genesis of these petitions is in insertion of Clause (zzm) in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, w.e.f. 1st April, 2004. Section 65(105) defines taxable service. Clause (zzm) has included within the definition of taxable service, the service provided :- "To any person, by airports authority or by any other person, in any airport or a civil enclave : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and held the respondent AAI liable for payment of service tax. The respondent AAI has not accepted that decision and has filed an appeal which is pending adjudication. 7. Besides the aforesaid dispute, there is also a dispute, as to who is to bear the service tax, if ultimately found applicable. 8. We are however of the view that since the petitioners as well as the respondent AAI, both are challenging the very leviability of service tax on the subject transaction and further since the appeal against the order levying the service tax is pending consideration and in adjudication of which appeal, the questions as raised herein will necessarily have to be decided, and yet further since the said appellate fora is the appropriate fora to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AAI for service tax is outstanding. We are, herein below recording in a tabular form, the position in each of the cases. Sr. No. Writ Petition Number Particulars 1. 15095/2006 The respondent AAI had awarded the contract to the petitioners for collection and disposal of garbage from IGI Airport, Delhi. The said contracts have already come to an end. Vide interim order in these petitions the respondent AAI was restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners for collection/recovery of service tax. However the respondent AAI is withholding the security deposit in the form of FDRs of the petitioners. The interest of the respondent AAI is thus fully safeguarded. The petitioners are however directed to keep t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AI, the respondent AAI demanded the same from the petitioners. The petitioners besides disputing the leviability of the service tax also contended that even if it was leviable, they were not liable since inspite of their query the respondent AAI had informed them that no service tax was leviable. The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause and ultimately approached the Bombay High Court which also directed appointment of an arbitrator qua the agreement with respect to the Bombay Airport. Though the respondent AAI in pursuance thereto also appointed arbitrator for similar dispute qua other airports but subsequently revoked the appointment for other airports save Mumbai. Though the petitioners have not paid the service tax demanded by the ....