Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India, (SC) BS87233
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

Writ Petn. (C) Nos. 53 with 186, 262, 263 and 228 etc. etc. of 1998 and Transferred Case Nos. 15, 16-36 and 37 to 39 of 1999. D/d. 27.7.1999.

Laghu Udyog Bharati and another - Appellant

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocate, R. C. Verma, C. Siddharth, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Kavin Gulati, C. N. Sreekumar, L. K. Pandey, Kailash Vasdev, Mrs. Rukman Menon, Satvir Verma, R. Santhanam, Ashok K. Singh, Ravinder Singh (Santha K. Mahale) Advocates for P. Mahale, (Dr. Arvind Gupta), Advocates.

For the Appearing Parties :- U.A. Rana, Ms. Arshi Suhail) Advocate for M/s. Gagrat and Co. Advocates, Yashank Adhyaru (D. K. Garg), Advocate (N. P.), N. K. Bajpai, Hemant Sharma, T. A. Khan, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.

Finance Act, 1994, Sections 65, Section 66 and 94 - Service Tax Rules, 1994, Rules 2(d)(xii) and 2(xvii) - Service Matters - Service tax - Person responsible for collection - Rule 2(xii) and (xvii) making client of clearing and forwarding agents and customer of goods transporter responsible for collection of service tax - Being in conflict with Sections 65, 66 are liable to be quashed - Tax collected liable to be refunded.

[Paras 8, 9, 10, 11 12 and 13]

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J. - The petitioners in these cases are the persons who are utilising the services of goods transport operators and of clearing and forwarding agents and are seeking to impugn the validity of Rule 2(xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, as amended in 1997, on the ground that the said sub-rules are contrary to the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, whereby service tax was sought to be levied by the Parliament.

2. A brief legislative history is that service tax was, for the first time, imposed by the Finance Act, 1994. This tax was proposed on three type of services which were rendered. By the Finance Act, 1997 the Legislature sought to cast the not much wider. It amended certain provisions in the Act and, thereafter rules which had originally been framed in 1994 were also amended.

3. By Chapter V of the Finance Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1997 service tax is imposed in relation to the taxable services which are provided. Section 65 is the definition section. Some of the sub-clauses which are relevant for our purpose read as under :

4. Section 66 is the charging section which, after its amendment in 1997, reads as under :

5. Sections 67 and 68 contain the method in which the taxable services are to be valued, collection and recovery of service tax, are as under :

6. The procedure which has to be followed for collecting the service tax is prescribed by Section 70 which, inter alia, requires the person responsible for collecting the service tax to file the return in the prescribed form. Assessment is made under Section 71 and there are other sections in the said Chapter which deal with levy and collection of this tax and also provides for imposition of penalty etc. in relation thereto.

7. A perusal of these provisions relating to the machinery of the levy and collection of service tax clearly shows that any action which is required to be taken is qua the assessee, namely, the person responsible for collecting the service tax which includes his agents.

8. Section 66, which is a charging section provides that the charge of tax at the rate of 5% is on the value of the taxable services which are provided to any person by the persons responsible for collecting the service tax. Insofar as the clearing agents and the transporters are concerned Section 66 has to be read with Section 65(41)(d), (J) and (M), according to which the taxable service is what, in the case of clearing and forwarding agents, rendered to his client and in the case of goods transporters is rendered to its customer. The "person responsible for collecting the service tax", referred to in Section 66 has to be read with Section 65(28) which defines this expression to mean the person who is required to collect the service tax or to pay the same. It is clear from the reading of these provisions that according to the Finance Act the charge of tax is on the person who is responsible for collecting the service tax. It is he, who by virtue of the provisions of Section 65(5) is regarded as assessee. He is the person who provides the service.

9. Section 68(1A) is a special provision which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1997. According to section 68(1) "every person who was providing the taxable service is the one who is required to collect the service tax at the rate specified in Section 66." With respect to the taxable services referred in item G to R of sub-clause (41) of Section 65, Section 68(1-A) provides that the service tax for such service shall be collected from such person and in such manner as may be prescribed and to such person all the provisions shall apply as if he is the person responsible for collecting the service tax in relation to such service. As we read Section 68 (68(1A)) it does not in any way seek to alter or change the charge of service tax levied under Section 66, which is on the person responsible for collecting the service tax. It also does not to our mind, in any way, amend any of the sub-sections of Section 65 which contains the definitions of different expressions. All that Section 68(1-A) enables to be done is that with regard to the assessees or the persons who are responsible for collecting the service tax, the individual or the officer concerned can be identified and it is that person who would be a person responsible for collecting the service tax. In other words this provision, namely, Section 68(1-A) cannot be so interpreted as to make a person as an assessee even though he may not responsible for collecting the service tax. The service tax is levied by reason of the services which are offered. The imposition is on the person rendering the service. Of course, it may be an indirect tax, it may be possible that the same is passed on to the customer but as far as the levy and assessment is concerned it is the person rendering the service who alone can be regarded as an assessee and not the customer. This is the only way in which the provisions can be read harmoniously.

10. By amending the definition of "person responsible for collecting of service tax" in the impugned rules with regard to services provided by the clearing and forwarding agents and the goods transport operator a person responsible is said to be the client or the customer of the clearing and forwarding agents and the goods transporter. In relation to the services provided by others and referred to sub-rule (i) (xi) and (xiii) to (xvi) of Rule 2(d), the definition of the person responsible is in consonance with the definition of that expression occurring in Section 65 of the Act. However, with regard to the services rendered by clearing and forwarding agents and the goods transport operator the definitions contained in Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii), which seeks to make the customers or the clients as the assessee, is clearly in conflict with Sections 65 and 66 of the Act.

11. Section 68(1-A) cannot to our mind, regard a customer or a client of the clearing and forwarding agent or of the goods transport operator being treated as an assessee who will become liable to file a return and be subjected to the levy of service tax and if he does not file the return, would render himself to penalty and other proceedings. In this connection we may refer to Sections 70 and 71 which read as under :

12. These sections clearly show that the return which has to be filed pertains to the payment which are received by the person rendering the service in respect of the value of the taxable services. Surely, this is a type of information which cannot under any circumstances, be supplied by the customer. Moreover the operative part of sub-section (1) of Section 70 clearly stipulates that it is a person responsible for collecting the service tax who is to furnish the return. By rules which are framed, the person who is receiving the services cannot be made responsible for filing the return and paying the tax. Such a position is certainly not contemplated by the Act.

13. Section 94 gives the Central Government power to make the rules. These rules are to be made for carrying out the provisions of the Chapter. The chapter relates to taxing the services which are provided. The tax is on the value of the services and it is only the person who is providing the service can be regarded as an assessee. The rules, therefore, cannot be so framed which do not carry out the purpose of the chapter and cannot be in conflict with the same.

14. We have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii), insofar as it makes persons other than the clearing and forwarding agents or the persons other than the goods transport operator as being responsible for collecting the service tax, are ultra vires the Act itself. The said sub-rules are accordingly quashed.

15. At this juncture it is pertinent to notice that by an amendment Notification No. 20/98 Central Excise (N.T.) dated 2nd June, 1998 issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act taxable services provided by goods transport operators, outdoor caterers, pandal and shamiana contractors were exempted from the levy of the said tax. This exemption was, however, prospective and it does not grant exemption in regard to clearing and forwarding agents. It is for this reason that the petitioners have continued to pursue with these petitions.

16. For the aforesaid reasons the transferred cases and the writ petitions except WP(C) Nos. 5/99, 228 and 262/98 are allowed and any tax which has been paid by customers or clients of the clearing and forwarding agents or of the goods transport operators shall be refunded within twelve weeks on their making a demand for refund.

17. All the intervention applications are dismissed except those which were allowed earlier

W. P. (C) NO. 262 OF 1998

18. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

W. P. (C) NOSection 228 OF 1998 AND 5 OF 1999

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw both these writ petitions with liberty to raise the contentions before the authorities under the Act if and when an appeal is filed by the members of the petitioner-association. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. NO. 6/99 IN W. P. (C) NO. 53 OF 1998

20. This is an application for intervention in W.P.(C) No. 53 of 1998. The said writ petition stands disposed of. As far as the applicant is concerned, he is seeking to raise questions and contentions which were raised in W.P. (C) No. 53 of 1998. The writ petition of the applicant is still pending in the High Court which the applicant is at liberty to proceed with. As far as this application for intervention is concerned, no further orders are called for.

Order accordingly.