By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 24, 2015: AGAINST an o-in-o dated 30.04.2015 an appeal was filed by the assessee and they sought an out-of-turn hearing.

The matter was heard on 24.08.2015 when the department was represented by Addl. Commissioner (A.R.). On that day, the Bench dictated an order stating clearly that the issue seems to be covered by the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-441-HC-AHM-ST. Consequently, an out-of-turn hearing was granted and matter was listed for disposal on 28.09.2015.

When this matter was called out on 28.09.2015, the D.R. informed that they had requested the Commissioner of Service Tax-IV for appointment of Special Counsel. The DR also produced a copy of letter dated 28.09.2015 from the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, directing the D.R. to seek an adjournment.

Peeved with this approach of the Revenue, the CESTAT observed -

"…We fail to understand that when the matter was listed for out-of-turn hearing by an order dated 24.08.2015, why the Commissioner of Service Tax did not take any action for appointing a Special Counsel. Seeking adjournment at last minute is wasting the time of the Court. On 24.08.2015, we have directed the assessee's Sr. Counsel to put forth his arguments which has been done so and in the interest of justice, we gave a chance to learned D.R. to make an effort and argue the matter today i.e. on 30.09.2015. Since the learned D.R. has shown his inability to argue the matter and reiterates the same argument of Commissioner to appoint a Special Counsel, in the interest of justice, we adjourn this matter to be continued for further hearing on 23.11.2015 as a part heard matter and expect that office of Commissioner of Service Tax will be able to appoint a Special Counsel for representing revenue.

4. We make it clear that we will not adjourn the matter any further any pretext or ground and matter will be heard in continuity on 23.11.2015. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the concerned Chief Commissioner for his knowledge and for an appropriate action."

In passing:

By the way, in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. (supra), the Gujarat High Court had while dismissing the Tax appeal inter alia held -

ST - Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency - respondent, in order to reduce his cost of manufacturing, deputed some of its staff to its subsidiaries or group companies for stipulated work or limited period - All throughout, the control and supervision remained with the respondent - Actual cost incurred by the company in terms of salary, remuneration and perquisites is only reimbursed by the group companies - there is no element of profit or finance benefit - subsidiary companies cannot be said to be their clients - there was no relation of agency and client - Tribunal has rightly held that service rendered by the respondent is not a taxable activity attracting Service Tax - no question of law arises - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court

(See 2015-TIOL-2273-CESTAT-MUM )