TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the first respondent, dated 09.05.2017, in Order-in-Original No.30 of 2017. By the said order, the first respondent has held that the services rendered by the petitioner for a project, which commenced prior to 01.06.2007 and completed after 01.06.2007, are considered as a single composite contract classifiable under the service category of Works Contract Service , as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65A ibid for the period upto 30.06.2012, as a declared service under clause (h) of Section 66E for the period from 01.07.2012 onwards; that the services rendered by the petitioner after 01.06.2007, is classifiable under service category of Works C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P.No.38178 of 2016, to quash an order of assessment under the Finance Act, dated 31.08.2016. The principal on ground which, the order was challenged is that the first respondent while passing the order took into account extraneous material, inasmuch as he adverted to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M/s.Kone Elevators (India), Limited, reported in 2005 (181) ELT 156, which has been overruled by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in case of M/s.Kone Elevators (India), Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2014 (34) STR 641 (SC). While issuing notice in the said Writ Petition on 03.11.2016, after a detailed discussion, the Court granted time to the respondent's counsel to take instruction in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on hearing the petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority/respondent No.1 will pass a fresh order, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. Needless to say, the copy of the order will be supplied to the petitioner. 13.3. I may also make it clear the fact that the impugned order has been set aside by this Court, will not be taken as a reflection on the merits of the matter. 5. From the above order, it is clear that the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority on the sole ground that the authority referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court, which was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The Court made it clear that setting aside the impugned order will not be taken as a reflection on the merits of the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es under the Central Sales Tax Act, will be the correct sale value which has to be accepted by the first respondent department. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of EID Parry (I) Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Anr., reported in [2000] 117 STC 457. To support the contention that there is no artificial vivisection of the contracts and the whole deal constituted one contract, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. L&T Ltd., reported in (2015) 39 STR 913. It was submitted that when the parties have identified specific consideration for each element, then it is a vivisection which cannot be ignored and in the instant case, the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not avail the appellate remedy provided under the Act. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court has summarized the grounds raised by the petitioner to justify the challenge to the impugned order by way of a Writ Petition. As prefaced, the petitioner though successful in the earlier attempt in getting the order set aside by filing W.P.No.38178 of 2016, the Court made it clear that setting aside of the order passed by the first respondent, dated 31.08.2016, will not be taken as a reflection on the merits of the matter. I find that the grounds which have been raised in the earlier Writ Petition with regard to the nature of the contract, the value thereof etc., are exactly the same as canvassed in this Writ Petition. Earlier, the Court after hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Court also held that it cannot be known as to what extent, the first respondent was influenced by referring to an overruled judgment and as to how the overruled judgment has had a bearing on the manner in which the subject contracts have been viewed. Thus, the petitioner did not canvass the merits of the case and appears to have been satisfied with the order passed by the Court remanding the matter for denova consideration to consider as to what extent the Adjudicating Authority was influenced by the ratio of the overruled judgment in the case of Kone Elevators India Pvt., Ltd.,(supra), did it have a bearing on the manner in which the subject contracts have been viewed. 12. Thus, when the Court at the very threshold held that questio....