2013 (4) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....23 of 2010,   421 of 2012 in WP(C)No.8924 of 2008,   423 of 2012 in WP(C)No.6826 of 2008,   424 of 2012 in WP(C)No.17288 of 2009,   428 of 2012 in WP(C)No.11131 of 2011,   430 of 2012 in WP(C)No.10360 of 2009,   431 of 2012 in WP(C)No.21075 of 2008,   432 of 2012 in WP(C)No.8982 of 2008,   434 of 2012 in WP(C)No.11136 of 2011,   435 of 2012 in WP(C)No.18989 of 2010,   442 of 2012 in WP(C)No.37486 of 2007,   444 of 2012 in WP(C)No.32768 of 2007,   448 of 2012 in WP(C)No.13662 of 2008,   451 of 2012 in WP(C)No.6257 of 2008,   452 of 2012 in WP(C)No.31987 of 2010,   453 of 2012 in WP(C)No.25487 of 2011,   457 of 2012 in WP(C)No.2796 of 2010,   ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, where under we upheld the constitutional validity of Section 65(105)(zzzz)and Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2010 providing for levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service. This court just followed the Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd V. Union of India and others (2011 (45) VST 413), upholding the validity of the statutory provisions challenged in this court. However, it was brought to the notice of this court that in the Special Leave Petitions filed against the Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court (supra), Supreme Court granted conditional stay orders directing payment of service tax on renting of immovable property service from 1.10.2011 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi High court relied on. 4. After hearing both sides, we do not think that the review petitions could be allowed because, we are bound to follow the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the special leave petitions pending against the judgment of Delhi High Court as we have followed the Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court to decide the cases against the respondents.   5. The standing counsel for the review petitioners submitted that Supreme Court has sought details about the demand in the pending special leave petition which are not furnished by the parties and that is the reason why the stay order is not modified in line with the stay orders issued in M/s.Retailers Association case (supra). 6. We therefore dispose of ....