IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a local authority is not exempted from service tax under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 when it avails services from a service provider and makes payment to the service provider.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 44252/2015 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order No. Ka.A/Ken.Ka/C3/P.R/51/2006-07 dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Respondent at Vide Annexure-K.

(b) Issue a Writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay Rs. 94,23,281/- along with future interest and penalty as and when imposes by Commissioner of service Tax to the petitioner.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representations dated 20.07.2015 at vide Annexure-P.

(d) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 48639/2015 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representations dated 20.07.2015 at vide Annexure-H.

(b) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to pay Rs. 46,00,108/- along with present and future interest and penalty as and when imposes by Commissioner of Service Tax.

(c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 48640/2015 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order No. Ka.A/Ken.Ka/C3/P.R/51/2006-07 dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Respondent vide Annexure-K.

(b) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representations dated 20.07.2015 at vide Annexure-P.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay Rs. 24,63,228/- along with present and future interest and penalty as and when imposes by Commissioner of Service Tax.

(d) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.

4. The respondent-Corporation passed a resolution to introduce a Scheme to Start Computer Educational Institutes in Bangalore Mahanagara Palike area to provide free computer education to the persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the Society. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation being satisfied with the qualification of the petitioner had entered into agreements in respect of different Assembly Constituencies for a period of three years to provide the above services and consequently, issued a work order.

5. The petitioners provided the services without any complaint from the respondent as regards which the petitioners were paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per candidate. The respondent – Corporation not being regular in payment of monies, the petitioners had to follow up for such payment. The petitioners had also called upon the respondent to make payment of service tax due on the amount to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. When no action was taken, the petitioner in W.P. No. 44252/2015 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 48640/2015 filed W.P. Nos.9749- 50/2012 for a mandamus seeking direction to the respondent to consider the representation which came to be allowed by way of order dated 17.07.2012.

6. Pursuant thereto, the respondent released the balance amount, however, did not make the payment of service tax amount. Despite the petitioners having brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioners have made part payment of service tax amount, the respondent having refused to pay the service tax on the ground that the respondent had received legal advice/legal opinion that respondent is not liable to make payment of service tax.

7. The petitioners having only made payment of partial amount due to service tax, the Commissioner of Service Tax issued show cause notices calling upon the petitioners to make payment of service tax due which the petitioners have challenged by depositing the requisite amounts. This aspect was also brought to the knowledge of the respondent and the respondent was called upon to ma