2009 (3) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... road, Varkala - Kallambalam road, Mavelikkara - Thiruvalla road, Kayamkulam - Mavelikkara road, Kidangara - Nerattupuram road, etc. are not taxable services under the Finance Act. (iii) To declare that the maintenance and repair of roads are not taxable services under the Head maintenance or repair of immovable property. (iv) To issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Exts. P5, P7, P10, P11 and P12. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. Petitioner is specialized in road works. The issue relates to the exigibility of the works undertaken by the petitioner to service tax. There are three provisions which arise for consideration. Firstly, Section 65(25b) provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams." According to the petitioner, a perusal of Section 65(25b) makes it clear that the service mentioned thereunder could not include such services provided in respect of roads. He also relies on Section 65(64). It reads as follows. "S. 65(64). "management, maintenance or repair" means any service provided by- (i) any person under a contract or an agreement; or (ii) a manufacturer or any person authorised by him, in relation to,- (a) management of properties, whether immovable or not; (b) maintenance or repair of properties, whether immovable or not; or (c) maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration, or servicing of any goods, excluding a motor vehicle." Accor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 65(105)(zzg). Ext. P11 is issued by the Assistant Director of Directorate General of Service tax enclosing Ext. P10. Petitioner is served with Ext. P12 summons. It is accordingly he has approached this court with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Counter affidavit is filed to which a reply affidavit is filed. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.N. Rajan Babu and Mr. P. Gopinath Menon, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions and contended that the works executed by the petitioner would not come within the scope of Section 65(105)(zzg) and he would submit that at any rate they would be works contracts fa....