2021 (3) TMI 1026 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Service Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Classification of services - commercial/industrial service or not - services provided to educational trust - contract works - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had carried out the contract works for the second respondent. There is no doubt that the second respondent is an educational trust that is enjoying exemption under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's stand from the beginning is that the service provided to such an educational trust cannot be called as commercial or industrial service. The stand of the petitioner's counsel is that the first respondent being an authority subordinate to the Tribunal is squarely bound by such a decision and that it is not open to him to go beyond it. The petitioner's counsel would state that the entire issue will have to be re-visited by the first respondent by associating the second respondent by invoking the power under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - That was a case arising under ESI Act. The authority had initiated the proceedings against the employer. But then, the employees were not associated either in individual or representative capacity. The Court felt that the statute is for the benefit of workmen and that therefore, they will have to be necessarily made a party. Thus, non-impleading of the second respondent in the adjudicating proceedings is really a serious defect. That vitiates the entire proceedings. That apart, it is evident from the record that the petitioner had also paid the service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 onwards. ₹ 8,40,563/- was paid by the petitioner on 27.03.2013 and 31.03.2013. This was well before passing of the impugned order. The first respondent does not appear to have taken note of the remittance made by the petitioner herein. The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.