9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal, dated 26.5.2011, and consequently, direct the second respondent to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, in ST/Appeal No.578/09, by following the decision of the High Court of Karnataka, rendered in C.S.T, Bangalore Vs. Turbotech Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (18) S.T.R. 545 (Kar.)]. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner Company is carrying on its business, primarily, in executing works contracts, by carrying out commercial and residential construction works involving men, materials, labour and overheads. The first respondent, while proposing the payment of service tax by the petitioner, had confined the proposal only to 33% of the total contract value, granting various exemptions for the balance 67% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent for the period, prior to 1.6.2007, cannot be sustained and as such, the petitioner is entitled to total waiver of pre-deposit of the tax, the penalty and the interest. 7. It had also been submitted that works contract service, executed prior to 1.6.2007, cannot be charged to service tax, under any head, including `commercial or industrial construction' or `residential construction', as held by the Supreme Court in its various decisions, wherein it has been held that the definition of `sale' cannot, per se, be sufficient to tax works contracts. 8. It had also been submitted that a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka had held, in C.S.T., Bangalore Vs. Turbotech Precision Engineering Priva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the petitioner had raised various grounds, by way of elaborate arguments, and had placed a number of decisions of the various Tribunals, the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, in support of his contentions to persuade this Court to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent appellate tribunal, dated 26.5.2011, and to direct the second respondent appellate tribunal to refer the matter to a larger Bench, to settle the contentious issues. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr.M.Ravindran, appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the impugned order is only an interim order. No final decision had been rendered by the second respondent appellate tribunal, with regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on its file, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. It is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, to raise all the issues available to them, including the issue relating to the referring of the matter to a larger bench, at the time of the hearing of the appeal. It is for the second respondent appellate tribunal to consider the issues raised before it and to pass an appropriate order, without being influenced by the observations made by it in the impugned order, dated 26.5.2011.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
