By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, OCT 12, 2018: PETITIONER challenges the vires of Rule 10 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 being ultra vires to Section 66B read with Section 64 and 65B (52) and 66C(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

A prayer is also made for striking down Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. Third prayer is to strike down paragraph 4 and 4.1 of the TRU circular No. 206/4/2017-ST dated 13th April, 2017.

The last prayer is to restrain the respondents from levying service tax by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India.

The High Court observed that the Finance Act, 1994 including the rules and the circulars issued thereunder have ceased to become effective to transactions with effect from 1st July, 2017.

Furthermore, the present writ petition was filed on 29th May, 2018 after provisions relating to service tax in the Finance Act, 1994 had ceased to become applicable.

Upon being questioned by the High Court, the petitioner accepted and admitted that there are no pending proceedings against the petitioner.

However, if the writ petition is allowed and relevant provisions are struck down, petitioner could seek refund, the counsel submitted.

The High Court, therefore, observed -

"…No such plea or prayer has been made in the writ petition. Be that as it may, we do not think it would be appropriate and proper to issue notice to examine validity and vires of statutory provisions that are no longer in operation and no proceedings are pending against the petitioner. We would not enter into an academic exercise and examine the earlier statutory provisions."

Noting that the present order would not bar/prohibit the petitioner from challenging the present enactment and if a writ petition is filed, the same would be examined in accordance with law on merits, the writ petition was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-2132-HC-DEL-ST)