Madras High Court
Pandian Textile Mills (P) Ltd vs The Union Of India on 24 June, 2022
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 24.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.Nos.21247, 21248, 21249, 21250, 21251,
21252, 21253, 21254 & 21736 of 2000
AND
W.M.P.No.30940 of 2000 in W.P.No.21247 of 2000
W.M.P.No.30941 of 2000 in W.P.No.21248 of 2000
W.M.P.No.30942 of 2000 in W.P.No.21251 of 2000
W.M.P.No.30943 of 2000 in W.P.No.21252 of 2000
W.M.P.No.31549 of 2000 in W.P.No.21736 of 2000
W.P.No.21247 of 2000
Pandian Textile Mills (P) Ltd.
Kasipalayam 624 711
Dindigul .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent
in his proceedings in O.C.No.870/2000 dated 26.07.2000, quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
W.P.No.21248 of 2000
Chola Textiles Ltd.
20, Dharapuram Road
Thillai Nagar
Tirupur 641 601 .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent
in his proceedings in O.C.No.887/2000 dated 26.07.2000, quash the same.
W.P.No.21249 of 2000
Chola Textiles Ltd.
20, Dharapuram Road
Thillai Nagar
Tirupur 641 601 .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis .. Respondents
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring Section 113 of the Finance Act,
2000, as invalid, unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal.
W.P.No.21250 of 2000
Pandian Textile Mills (P) Ltd.
Kasipalayam 624 711
Dindigul .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring Section 113 of the Finance Act,
2000, as invalid, unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal.
W.P.No.21251 of 2000
Meera Textiles (P) Ltd.
Senan Kottai
Vedasandur .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent
in his proceedings in O.C.No.892/2000 dated 26.07.2000, quash the same.
W.P.No.21252 of 2000
Cheran Spinning Mills Ltd.
Minukkampatty, Kasipalayam
Vedasandur .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent
in his proceedings in O.C.No.877/2000 dated 26.07.2000, quash the same.
W.P.No.21253 of 2000
Cheran Spinning Mills Ltd.
Minukkampatty, Kasipalayam
Vedasandur .. Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring Section 113 of the Finance Act,
2000, as invalid, unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal.
W.P.No.21254 of 2000
Meera Textiles (P) Ltd.
Senan Kottai
Vedasandur .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring Section 113 of the Finance Act,
2000, as invalid, unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
W.P.No.21736 of 2000
M/s.United India Foods
(A division of Savorit Limited)
131 Trichy Road
Dindigul 624 005 .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Dindigul I Range
2/9-H, N.G.G.O. Colony
Dindigul 624 005 .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent
in his proceedings in O.C.No.895/2000 dated 08.08.2000, quash the same.
For Petitioner Mr.R.Parthiban
in all cases
For Respondents Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda
in all cases
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
The challenge made in W.P.Nos.21247, 21248, 21251, 21252 and 21736
of 2000 is to the notices issued by the second respondent viz., Superintendent
of Central Excise, Vedasandur Range, Dindigul, imposing service tax on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
services rendered by Goods Transport Operators, whereas, W.P.Nos.21249,
21250, 21253 and 21254 of 2000 are filed to issue a writ of declaration,
declaring Section 113 of the Finance Act, 2000, as invalid, unconstitutional,
arbitrary and illegal.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in all the cases is that they are
directed to furnish the details of payment of gross amount of freight to the
Goods Transport Operators for the services rendered by them during the period
from 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998, stating that they are liable to pay service tax
for the said period.
3. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel appearing for both sides, in unison, submitted that the issue involved
herein has already been considered in EID Parry India Limited v. Customs
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others [CMA Nos.599, 2511,
2512, 2711 of 2007 and 2332 of 2009 decided on 27.01.2015], in which, this
court, after following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat
Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2006 (3) STR 608] and the
decisions of this court in CMA No.1308 of 2009 etc. batch dated 31.10.2013
and CMA.No.1322 of 2009 dated 04.09.2014], decided the substantial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
questions of law raised therein, against the assessee and in favour of the
Revenue. The relevant passages of the said judgment is usefully extracted
hereunder, for ready reference:
“7. The issue involved in these appeals has been considered by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise
v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another
(C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch dated 31.10.2013). This Court after
following several decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in
the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006
(3) S.T.R. 608 held that the demand raised by the Revenue on the users, who
received the service of the Goods Transport Operators, was valid.
8. Following the above-said decision of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch 7 dated
31.10.2013), this Court in C.M.A.No.1322 of 2009 dated 4.9.2014 held that
the show cause notices issued by the Revenue on the assessee, who received
the services of the Goods Transport Operators, was valid.
10. It is seen that in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V.
Union of India reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608, the Supreme Court upheld
the validity of the levy of service tax on users of services rendered by Goods
Transport Operators. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the legislative
competency of the levy of service tax on users of services rendered by goods
transport operators, held as follows:
"23. As we have said, Rule 2(1)(d) (xii) and (xvii) had been
held to be illegal in Laghu Udhyog Bharati only because the
charging provisions of the Act provided otherwise. Now that the
charging section itself has been amended so as to make the
provisions of the Act and the Rules compatible, the criticism of the
earlier law upheld by this Court can no longer be availed of. There
is thus no question of the Finance Act, 2000 overruling the decision
of this Court in Laghu Udhyog Bharati as the law itself has been
changed. A legislature is competent to remove infirmities
retrospectively and make any 8 imposition of tax declared invalid,
valid. This has been the uniform approach of this Court. Such
exercise in validation must of course also be legislatively competent
and legally sustainable. Those issues are considered separately. On
the first question, we hold that the law must be taken as having
always been as is now brought about by the Finance Act, 2000. The
statutory foundation for the decision in Laghu Udhyog Bharati has
been replaced and the decision has thereby ceased to be relevant for
the purposes of construing the present provisions (vide Ujagar
Prints vs. Union of India)."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
11. From a reading of the above-said decision of the Supreme Court
and that of this Court, it is clear that the users of the service rendered by the
Goods Transport Operators are liable to pay service tax. In the present case,
the appellant is using the services of the Goods Transport Operators during
different periods between 1997 to 1999. Hence, the appellant is liable to pay
service tax. Since the appellant has already paid the service tax, as per the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements
Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608, the question of refund
will not arise and the appellant is not entitled for refund. Hence, the Tribunal
is justified in confirming the order of the Original Authority declining to
grant refund.
12. Accordingly, following the above-said decision of the Supreme
Court Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006 (3)
S.T.R. 608 and the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and
another (C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch dated 31.10.2013) and in the case of
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry V. Customs, Excise and
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.No.1322 of 2009 dated
04.09.2014), the substantial questions of law admitted by this Court are
answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.”
4. Applying the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case,
wherein, the petitioners received the services of the Goods Transport
Operators for delivery of the products to their customers, this court is of the
opinion that they are liable to pay service tax during the relevant period.
5. Accordingly, all these writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
24.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254 & 21736 of 2000
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Union of India
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2.The Superintendent of Central Excise
Vedasandur Range
Dindigul
W.P.Nos.21247 to 21254
and 21736 of 2000
24.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
