^^ ^^/ Nsion Benefc ) INTHEmGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETn'ION N02472jOF^OQ5 PETITIONERS: r-" ^^ Jindal Steel & Power Limited, A Company Registered imder the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Delhi Road, Hisar (Haryana). Factor/ At: Kharsia Road, Raigarh (C.G.). Jindal Opencast Coalmines, Dorigamouha, District Raigarh (C.G.). RESPONDENTS: Versus '*'... : • ••-..- ^ 1. Union oflcdia, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. / 2. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central- Revenue Building, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). <,_.,_.- .__' WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTn'UTIONOFINDIA The petitioners, above nained, most respecffully submit as under: 1. PARTICULARSOF THE PETITIONERS. As shown in the cause title. r'i S^-—— - XI-HC—78 sfi^rw Vt-fi'h ^?i 3?n^?r sfRfaR' '3'5Er'^i'I<M<l<,.yTiiy'i®,faiMiy'i< ..^.^^A..^^^^o sn^T'tpRTC^5'^1^ ^iiw^ffiaan^i DivisjonBench: HON'BLE SHRI AJ<. RATNAIK, & HON'BLE SHRISUNIL KUMAR <tl<<iyit-1 ^W'S '9^SSS <fa<<cr •^sifipISIT^I <». SINHA.J. 13<7.2005 Mr. Prashant Mishra, Sr. fldvocate w Mr. V.R. Tiwari. teamed counsel for the petitioners. Thakur VijaySingh, teamed Assistant Sollcitor Senerat for Union of India/respondents. Heard. In this writ petttion, the petHfoner has challenged ttie provlsjons of Rute 2(1)(d)(v)ofthe Service Tax Ftutes, 1994 as yUra vlres the provistons ofFinanceAct, 1994 onthe grountfthat the safd rute Imppses se»vieetax on the pgtitioner who does not pro\tide bansport service but is recipient of transport serviee. In tfie case of G(l^irat Ambu|aCement& Another vs; Union oflridia & Another, report^d in (2008) 4SCC 214, the Supreme: GourthasjnteraliaheldttiatthSpr4visionsamendingSeetton65@of-the FinanceAet, 1994totreatthe recip|ents ofthesenriees as assessees only in case of semces rsndered by go^cfe transport operatore and ctearing & forWarding agents af®valid and a^e not hit byArt'ctes 14and 2^ of ConsBtuh'on of India. From the sai^ judgment, itappears that by virtua of tte amendments effected in Sectfoti 65(5) and66(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 by Section 116 of the Finar|ce Aet, 2(XX) as far as ttie seivh»s provided byctearing & forwardmg ^gentsand goodsfransport'operatois are concemed, the liabilifyto payth^tax is not on theperson prowdingthe taxable servtce but on the person wtfo pays for the services. Heince, Rule 2(1)(d)(v) ofthe Service Tso( Rutesj 1994 fe in consonance w the said i»i XI-HC—78 fSf "4l<<ld'Li, ®Tlly'l®, fa|C1iy'J,< .^.:L.!9.&:..^'d.'^^[^ 200 SII^TF TRqi' ('i'lt'l'^^) <--• sn^i mR;-fi+ "^T STE^T ^it^i -A M^ i'iS. / iFRHWHtoSiI^I amended provislons of the Rnance vaM. ThewritpetiUon is accoTdfng(ydismissed. !n viaw offte above, M.(W).lp. No.2003 of2005andl.A.No.4889of 2005 stand disposed <rf. Sd/- Chief Justice Judge / 4ii<il?f<il'i 'wreff ^f ft'st <Rit(i< ^? 3ff?PT <*ii^( Act, 1994 vrtiich have been held to be Sd/- SunilKumarSinh Judge a _._j