w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



S.K. Engineering Works v/s Commissioner of C. Ex. And Service Tax

    Writ Tax No. 104 of 2014

    Decided On, 29 April 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL

    For the Appellant: Rama Goel Bansal, Ashish Bansal, S.D. Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Bansal, Advocate for petitioner and Sri R.C. Shukla, Advocate for respondents. Sri R.C. Shukla, Advocate states that though time was granted to respondents to file counter affidavit on 17-2-2014 but the same has not been filed till date but he is ready to argue the matter without any counter affidavit. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court.

2. It is evident from record that the work contract of petitioner included service as well as supply of material. The Central Government had issued notification dated 20-6-2003 provided that value of goods and material sold by service provider to the recipient of service shall be exempted from Service Tax liable u/s 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 but admittedly the assessing authority while passing impugned order has completely ignored aforesaid notification for the reasons best known to him though he must be well aware of the said notification issued by Central Government.

3. Moreover, it is also evident from record that similar matters have been considered in appeal by appellate authority and it has found that assessment orders dealing with similar kind of work contract are illegal and Service Tax on the quantum of material supplied has been directed to be deducted. One of such order is on record, i.e., dated 12-12-2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad in F. No. 116/ST/APPL/ALLD/2012 and others connected matters. Apparently the aforesaid Government notification has not been noticed and even otherwise I do not find that the view taken by assessing authority in respect of work contract is justified. In my view the matter should be re-examined by respondent No. 2. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 6-11-2012 and 13-12-2013 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the light of notification dated 20-6-2003 as also the appellate order dated 12-12-2003 passed in F. No. 116/ST/APPL/ALLD/2012, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
O R