9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing "Cargo Handling Service", in the name and style M/s. CAXPORT, questions the action of the SAIL declining to reimburse the service tax payable under the handling contract entered into between the parties. 3. Pursuant to a tender invited by SAIL for handling iron and steel materials at the warehouse of SAIL, Central Marketing Organisation, the Petitioner participated, was successful and was awarded the contract. On 15th February 2005, an agreement was entered into. The relevant clause of the agreement, concerning the issue of payment of tax, is Clause 3.2, which reads as under: "3.2 While handling the materials, the contractor should comply with all relevant Railway Rules, Regulations and any other state or Central Act / Legislation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrange for reimbursement of the Service Tax payment on the aforesaid contract." 6. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the Petitioner had deposited Rs. 8,37,874/- together with interest in respect of the bills raised by SAIL for the period from February, 2005 to December, 2005 and was compelled to pay it since it was due by 31st January, 2006. By letter dated 17th March 2006, the Petitioner informed SAIL that till 8th February 2006, in respect of the bills for the quarters ending December 2005, the Petitioner had paid service tax in December Rs. 12,00,105/-. 7. On 26th July 2006, the Petitioner wrote to BSO, SAIL seeking reimbursement of the service tax paid thus far to the extent of Rs. 18,61,738/-. The stand taken by the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into with other Cargo Handling Service Providers SAIL had in fact reimbursed the service tax component. 10. However, as explained by SAIL in their reply to the additional affidavits, the said Cargo Handing Contracts were entered into much before the said service became amenable to service tax. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek to draw a parallel with those service providers. 11. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner sought to contend that there was no provision in the contract regarding levy of any service tax and, therefore, it was deemed not to be included when the Petitioner quoted its rates pursuant to the tender issued. According to him, the Petitioner was entitled not only to the differential rate hike, but al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
