WP 1694/11 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1694/2011
Ashish S/o Ambikaprasad Dubey,
Aged about 32 years, Occ-Business,
R/o 272, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur -
440 010, through Power of Attorney
Mr.Amar Parasnath Dubey,
aged about 55 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. 272, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Union of India through-
a) Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Government of India, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
b) Director General of Service Tax,
Block No.11, 7th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
c) Commissioner of Central Excise and
Customs, Service Tax Department,
Ayakar Bhavan, Seminary Hills, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Sales and Excise,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Airport Authority of India,
through its Director,
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport,
Sonegaon, Nagpur.
4. MIHAN India Pvt.Ltd.,
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport,
Sonegaon, Nagpur.
5. Commissioner of Central Excise &
Customs, Service Tax Department,
"Ayakar Bhavan", Seminary Hills,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri Shantanu Khedkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.J. Dhumane, counsel for the respondent no.1.
Mrs. H. Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
Shri S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the respondent no.4.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:31 :::
WP 1694/11 2 Judgment
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
8 JUNE, 2017.
DATE : TH
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing service tax on the letting out/renting of immovable properties.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the issue involved in this writ petition is answered against the petitioner by the judgment in the case of Retailers Association Versus Union of India, reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 660. It is stated that the validity of the provisions has been upheld in the said judgment.
3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, for the reasons recorded in the judgment reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 660 (Retailers Association Versus Union of India), we dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.
4. However, since interim orders granted in the matter decided by the judgment reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 660 (Retailers Association Versus Union of India) were continued for a period of four week with a view to enable the petitioners in the said writ petition to seek recourse to ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:31 ::: WP 1694/11 3 Judgment the remedy in appeal, we extend the interim relief granted by us on 27.06.2011 for a period of four weeks only.
Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:54:31 :::