TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The assessee is a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of road construction, maintenance of roads and collecting tolls, etc. During the period from 1st July, 2002 to 31st January, 2007, the assessee had entered into two contracts with the National Highway Authority of India ( NHAI for short) for collection of toll from the users of the specified highway. The first contract was dated 30th September, 2002 and the second contract was dated 28th December, 2005. Under the first contract dated 30th September, 2002, the assessee was required to collect toll at the specified rate on specified highways and deposit the entire amount of toll c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ₹ 45 lakhs. Challenging the aforesaid order, the assessee has filed the present appeal. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has ordered predeposit by rejecting the contention of the assessee that the NHAI was carrying on the sovereign function of the State inter alia on the ground that the NHAI was a statutory authority and not a constitutional authority. The Tribunal has further held that since the NHAI is required to carry on its activities in developing, maintaining and managing the national highways on business principles, any service rendered in relation thereto would merit classification under 'business auxiliary services'. The Tribunal has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has held that collecting toll tax is a sovereign function, it is just and proper to consider the appeal on merits without any predeposit, especially when the toll collected under the first contract and also the upfront payment under the second contract was required to be deposited into the government treasury. 9. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.C. Paulose (supra) does not support the case of the revenue, because, in that case, collecting entry fee was subject to providing various amenities set out in the agreement, whereas, in the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that apart from collecting toll the assessee was rendering any other services. The question as to whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
