TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of this Court is a matter of serious concern; as a tribunal being subordinate to and subject to the control of this court under Article 226, it was not expected to overlook or disregard the binding decision. Yet that circumstance alone cannot compel us to exercise discretion to entertain these writ proceedings given that the impugned order in these proceedings is primarily a subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court. This Court is of the opinion that these writ petitions should not be entertained. It is open to the writ petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA For the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that letting out and renting out of the premises became subject to levy w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (with the introduction of Clause (zzzz) to Section 65(105) of the Finance Act. 2 Petitioners relied upon certain judgments of this Court (Flemmingo Duty Free Shops Vs. Union of India, 2012 (28) (STR) 49 Delhi; C.Sadanandan Vs. Airport Dir Airports Authority of India And Anr. WP(C) 4653/2011 decided on 27.02.2012). Broadly these two judgments as well as others judgments that followed it and held that letting out of various portions of Airport premises per se did not attract service tax levy. 3 The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ors. 158 (2009) DLT 722, resulted in parliam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alternative remedy given that the same impugned order is a subject matter of challenge in an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged this Court not to feel constrained by the pendency of the appeal and apparently can exercise its writ jurisdiction for several reasons. It was urged that the appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India squarely urged the question which was sought to be agitated in these proceedings; more seriously it was argued that the CESTAT s view is perverse inasmuch as it has expressly disregarded the binding decision in Flemmingo (supra), Airport Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India WP(C) 4274/2010 pronounced on 30.07.2014 and C.Sundaram (supra). It is also urged that the Revenue in no manner would be prejudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
