Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2018 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 560 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of petition - efficacious alternative remedy - Appellate authority rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation. - interpretation of Sections 66D(k), 66D(e) and 66E(e) - Exemption from service tax / negative list - it is claimed that inspection and testing fee it collects is a part of transmission and distribution of electric energy. - Held that:- It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, should we need recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution. It illustrates two such occasions: where the very vires of the statute are in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up that for preventing public injury and for vindicating public justice a suitor may need constitutional remedies - the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by the statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. Is the statutory adjudicatory mechanism under the Finance Act 1994 ill-suited to resolve the disputes the writ petitions have raised? - Held that:- Section 66D contains the “negative list of services”. Among them found are a few services by the Government or a local authority. The petitioner claims that the transmission and distribution of electricity by any of its utilities is exempted under Section 66D(k) of the Act. In addition, it claims that its purchasing the materials used for transmission activities is purely sale and purchase stands exempted under Section 66D(e) of the Act. Examined further, the petitioner Board also pleads that the inspection and testing fee it collects is a part of transmission and distribution of electric energy. So it is not based on any special contract. By that reckoning, the inspection and testing fee, the Board asserts, will not fall within the mischief of Section 66E(e) of the Act. Time limitation - Section 73 of FA - Held that:- As is well known, the limitation is a mixed question of fact and of law. Summary adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution is hardly suited to resolve that dispute. Second, let us consider whether a statutory body can resolve, as the Electricity Board puts it, intricate interpretative issues. Indeed, the Board has laid much emphasis on Whirlpool Corporation. But the Electricity Board or even the petitioners in the other two writ petitions have not complained that the Revenue has trampled on their fundamental rights or violated the principles of natural justice. Nor are the proceedings the Revenue initiated are alleged to be ultra vires. It is not a case of the Revenue’s lacking the inherent, or subject matter, jurisdiction. Then comes interpretation. Intricate or plain, interpretation is the daily bread and butter of every adjudicatory- judicial, quasi-judicial-body or even an administrative body. To apply the law to a fact, one must first read the law. The reading entails understanding. And the very understanding is an interpretative process. Interpretation is not a judicial ritual; it is a cognitive process. Period. Even otherwise, legislative interpretation is not the sole prerogative of the Constitutional Court, though the legislative invalidation is. Petition dismissed.
|