2017 (11) TMI 1630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.R.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd Respondent. By consent on either side, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2.The 2nd respondent/Indian Oil Corporation established the petroleum retail outlet in the lands in question and appointed the petitioners as Maintenance and Handling Contractors to operate the outlet and an agreement to the said effect was executed. In terms of the agreement, the petitioners were paid the monthly compensation at the rates specified in Clause 28 of the agreement. While so, the petitioners received summons from the 3rd respondent, the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise calling....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... invoice. IOC to ensure availment of input service tax credit for Service Tax reimbursed to the Service Provider, wherever eligible, against Service Tax invoice. 4. The petitioners' case is that in terms of the above circular, the applicable service tax charged by the COCO-Operator/Service Provider will be reimbursed by the Indian Oil Corporation at actual against Service Tax Invoice. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned communications sent by the 2nd respondent violates the Policy Circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation and therefore, the impugned communications have to be set aside and the Indian Oil Corporation should be directed to deposit the service tax amount to the 3rd respondent. 5.The learned standing counsel a....