Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Jayachandran
T.Vijaya Kumar, S/o T.Narayana Rao – Appellant
Versus
Sree Vijaya Timbers Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties are landlord and tenants. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments over service tax reimbursement agreement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. service tax liability rests with service provider. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. judicial interpretations of service tax liability. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of suit confirmed; no agreement for service tax reimbursement. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
G.Jayachandran, J.
The Appellant and the Respondents are landlord and tenants.
2. O.S.No.5568 of 2017 filed by the landlord for recovery of the service tax with interest paid by the plaintiff/landlord for renting his premises to the defendants/tenants. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment rendered in Union of India –vs- Bengal Sharchi Housing Dev Ltd. Reported in [( 2018 (1) SCC 311 )], the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that, the plaintiff/landlord, who is the service provider, cannot get reimbursement of the tax paid from the service receiver, in the absence of specific agreement to that effect.
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the present appeal suit is filed by the plaintiff/landlord on the following grounds:
In the proceeding initiated for fixation of fair rent, the Ho
Service tax liability for rent of commercial property lies with the landlord as the service provider, unless explicitly transferred to the tenant by agreement.
Rejection of plaint – Civil suit cannot be maintained by overriding statutory embargo.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
