SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J.
Hypertherm (India) Thermal Cutting Private Limited, Represented by its Director  Mr.Kotagiri Pramod Kumar - Appellant 
Versus 
The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise - Respondent 
W.P.Nos.14460 and 5886 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.15345 and 6483 of 2021
Decided on : 20-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
For the Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas

Services provided by the petitioner constituted exports under prevailing tax rules, thus exempt from service tax, necessitating a refund of input tax credit.

Headnote:(A) Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 73(2) and 76 - Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 - CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Service tax liability - Petitioner challenged demand and rejection of refund for input tax credit. Court found that services provided constituted export as per Rule 6A and not taxable under Indian jurisdiction. (Paras 56, 58, 62)

(B) Export of Services - Definition and Conditions - For determining export services, the place of provision of such services must be outside of India and payment must be received in convertible foreign exchange, among other conditions. (Paras 56, 57)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner provided marketing and business support services to its subsidiary located in Singapore, believing them to be export services. Writ petitions challenged service tax demands and refund rejections on the basis of PLACE OF PROVISION OF SERVICES RULES. 2012. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Findings of Court:
The orders demanding service tax and rejecting refund claims were found unsustainable, leading to quashing and remand for processing of claims. (Para 62)

Issues: Whether services provided by the Petitioner qualify as export under Rule 6A of the SERVICE TAX RULES and the consequent applicability of service tax liability. (Paras 34, 35)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held the position that the services offered fell under the definition of export services as they met the required conditions of Rule 6A, specifically regarding the location and nature of service delivery in relation to the recipient of the service. (Para 57)

Result: Writ petitions allowed, impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to gst orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court examines procedural history and outlines petitions. (Para 3)
3. confirmation of service tax demand. (Para 4 , 5)
4. rejection of input tax credit refund. (Para 6 , 7)
5. court clarifies the applicability of service tax rules. (Para 8 , 14 , 56)
6. claim for service tax exemption. (Para 9 , 10)
7. show cause notices issued. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
8. arguments regarding service provision location. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 20)
9. respondents' position on service tax. (Para 22 , 23 , 25)
10. arguments on the nature and classification of services. (Para 31)
11. disposal of writ petitions on merits. (Para 32 , 33)
12. interpretation of export service regulations. (Para 34 , 35)
13. court's decision on service tax liability. (Para 58 , 59 , 60)
14. order for refund processing. (Para 61 , 62)
15. final ruling on tax liability and refunds. (Para 63)

ORDER :

By this Common Order, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of. In these writ petitions viz., W.P.No.14460 of 2021 and W.P.No.5886 of 2021, the Petitioner has challenged the respective Impugned Order-in-Originals passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Additional Commissioner of GST respectively as detailed below:-

Table-1

Sl. No.W.P.No.Impugned Order No. & Date of the Impugned OrderParticularsPeriod
15886 of 2021Order-in-Original Nos.28 to 30/2020-ADC (dated 30.09.2020)Rs.2,17,21,291/- (Service Tax and Cesses Payable together with Penalty)October 2012 to September 2014
October 2014 to March 2016
April 2016 to June 2017
214460 of 2021Order-in-Original Nos.02- 05/2021 (R)Rs. 37,88,251/- (Rejection of Refund Claim)July 2012 to September 2015

2. The Order-in-Original Nos.28-30/2020-ADC dated 30.09.2020 impugned in W.P.No.5886 of 2021 is preceded by a Show Cause Notice and two Statement of Demands issued to the Petitioner for the period in the following Table as detailed below:-

Table-2

Sl.No.DatedSCN No.SOD No.
122.04.201540/2015-C (ST-II)-
221.04.2017-10/2017
309.10.2018-32/2018 (ADC)

3. Operative portion of the Order-in-Original Nos.28-30/2020–ADC dated 30.09.2020 impugned in W.P.No.5886 of 2021 reads as under:-

“18. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following order:-

ORDER

I. Show cause Notice No. No.40/2015 dated 22.04.2015:-

(a)I confirm the demand of Rs.76,72,245/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Two hundred and Forty five only) being the Service Tax and CESSes payable on the taxable services provided by them during the period October 2012 to September 2014 under Section 73(2) of the FINANCE ACT 1994.

(b)I confirm the interest at applicable rate under Section 75 of the FINANCE ACT 1994, on the demand of service tax and cesses made at l(a) above;

(c) I impose a penalty of Rs.7,67,225/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Five Only) under Section 76 of the FINANCE ACT 1994. M/s HYPERTHEM shall however have the option to pay an amount equal to 25% of this amount provided that they pay the entire service tax demanded at 1.(a) above along with interest at applicable rate demanded at 1.(b) above including the 25% of the penal amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order,

II. Statement of Demand No. No. 10/2017 dated 21.04.2017:-

(a)I confirm the demand of Rs.69,27,162/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Two only) being the Service Tax and CESSes payable on the taxable services provided by them during the period October 2014 to March 2016 under Section 73(2) of the FINANCE ACT 1994.

(b)I confirm the interest at applicable rate under Section 75 of the FINANCE ACT 1994, on the demand of service tax and cesses made at II(a) above;

(c) I impose a penalty of Rs.6,92,716/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixteen Only) under Section 76 of the FINANCE ACT 1994. M/s HYPERTHEM shall however have the option to pay an amount equal to 25% of this amount provided that they pay the entire service tax demanded at II(a) above

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top