M/S Rainboe Print-O-Pack vs M/S Matchless Industries Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 6430 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of Decision: December 03, 2014

+    RSA 373/2014
     M/S RAINBOW PRINT-O NPACK PVT LTD. ..... Appellant
                  Through: Ms. Unashi Singh &
                            Ms. Nisha Rawat, Advocates

                        versus

     UDIT GADHOK & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                  Through:            Nemo.

+    RSA 375/2014
     M/S RAINBOE PRINT-O NPACK               ..... Appellant
                   Through: Ms. Unashi Singh &
                            Ms. Nisha Rawat, Advocates


                        versus

     M/S MATCHLESS INDUSTRIES OF INDIA                ..... Respondent
                  Through: Nemo.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                        JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

C.M.No.19847/2014 (u/S 151 CPC) in RSA No. 373/2014 C.M.No.19859/2014 (u/S 151 CPC) in RSA No. 375/2014

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RSA No. 373/2014 & C.M.No.19846/2014 (for stay) RSA No. 375/2014 & C.M.No.19858 (for stay)

RSA No.373/2014 RSA No.375/2014 Page 1 With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the above captioned two appeals were taken up together for hearing as first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment has decided both the first appeals by common impugned judgment.

The factual matrix of this case is already noticed in the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. Suffice it would be to note that appellant is the tenant of respondents and the dispute arose regarding the liability to pay the service tax. While relying upon the dictum of a Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) Nos. 440/2012 and 52/2013 titled Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust Vs. Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. decided on 15.05.2013 finding returned is that the user is liable to pay the service tax.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the question of law which arises in this appeal is that the service tax has to be borne by the service provider in view of the Lease Agreement of the year 2008 and the Settlement of 20 th October, 2010 is to be read in continuation with the Lease Agreement and the court below have misinterpreted the Lease Agreement and the aforesaid Settlement and so, the judgments of the courts below deserve to be set aside.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the settlement arrived at between the parties, as noticed in the order of 20 th October, 2010, I find that the aforesaid settlement of 20th October, 2010 nowhere states that the settlement is in continuation of the Lease Agreement

RSA No.373/2014 RSA No.375/2014 Page 2 of the year 2008. The aforesaid settlement is silent as to who has to bear the service tax. Therefore, the liability to pay service tax would be upon the user. Both the courts below have rightly concluded so. While relying upon the dictum of Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the Second Appeal. There is no perversity in the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below.

Consequentially, both the appeals and the applications are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 03, 2014 ks

RSA No.373/2014 RSA No.375/2014 Page 3