Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance & Ors.

Common order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioners in the several writ petitions are tenants of premises which they have taken on lease or licence and have nevertheless been subjected to collection of amounts in addition to the lease amount or licence fee agreed to with the principal or landlords of the premises, on account of leve of service tax on landlords-the service providers, under the provisions of Section 65 (105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1-6-2007. Section 68 of the 1994 Act enjoins that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. The liability to service tax is therefore on the service provider and not on the service recipient. A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Devyani International Limited v.

Union of India [1] has non-suited the petitioners on the ground that they were not service providers and as tenants have no locus standi to challenge imposition of service tax on renting. Be that as it may. The provisions of Section 65 (105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2007 and further amended with retrospective effect from 1-6-2007 by the Finance Act, 2010 have been upheld by the several High Courts vide Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. V. Union of India [2] , Utkal Builders Ltd. V. Union of India [3] , Cinemax India Ltd. V. Union of India [4] , Retailers Association of India v. Union of India [5] and Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. V. Union of India [6] . We have carefully considered the rationes propounded in the judgments and are in respectful agreement therewith. For the reasons alike, as recorded in the judgments of the several High Courts referred to above and for the reason that the petitioners herein are not service providers as well, these writ petitions are dismissed.

But in the circumstances without costs. W.P.Nos. 12273, 12303, 26543, 27780 and 27864 of 2010: Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S. Niranjan Reddy and Sri Ramabhadran, learned counsel representing Sri Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan have made oral applications for a certificate for grant of leave for preferring appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the Constitution, in terms of Article 134A(b) of the Constitution. Since there is no substantive question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution involved, the oral applications for grant of leave are rejected. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 2nd August, 2012 GRR [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 2011 (22) STR 262 (Kar.) 2010 (20) STR 737 (P&H) 2011 (22) STR 257 (Ori.) 2011-TIOL-535-HC-AHM-ST 2011-TIOL-523-HC-MUM-ST 2011_TIOL-610-HC-DEL-ST-LB