Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 25586/2009 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 10227 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25586 of 2010). Case: Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs Indian National Shipowners Ass. and Ors.. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 25586/2009 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 10227 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25586 of 2010)|
|Party Name:||Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs Indian National Shipowners Ass. and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Bishwajit Bhattacharya, ASG, Manish Pushkarna, Ajay Singh, July James and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. and For Respondents: Harish Salve, Sr. Adv., Tarun Gulati, Kishore Kunal, Rony John, Praveen Kumar, V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Alok Yadav, Pawan Agarwal, Somiran Sharma and K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advs.|
|Judges:||Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.|
|Issue:||Finance Act, 1994 - Section 65(105)|
|Judgement Date:||December 01, 2010|
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court setting aside and quashing the notices issued by the Appellant herein to the Members of the Respondent Association by holding that the entry contained in Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 does not include services provided by the Members of the Respondent - Indian National Ship owners Association.
Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted before us that such services which are provided by the Members of the Respondent No. 1 Association have now become subjected to the payment of service tax by virtue of the amendment brought in Section 65(105) by way of amendment in the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 16.5.2008 by inserting a fresh entry namely Section 65(105)(zzzzj). Counsel submits that the period relevant in the present case is the period from 1.6.2007 to 15.5.2008. He seeks to contend that although the aforesaid amendment was brought in subsequently but yet by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 65(105) Entry No. zzzy, the Members of the Respondent Association is still liable to pay such service tax. He has drawn our attention to Entry No. zzzy which provides that any services provided to any person, by any person in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas would be taxable.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 as also Respondent No. 3 Oil and Natural Gas Commission have submitted that the aforesaid interpretation sought to be given by the counsel appearing for the Appellant is misplaced for the simple reason that the services rendered by the Members of the Respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be any services in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas. They have also drawn our attention to the nature and scope of work which was required to be rendered by the Members of the Respondent Association and which are specified in the Schedule B-II (page 200 of the Paper Book) read as under:
Scope of Work foraht Ss (Not Less Than 60 T BP) PS v. & OS v.
To carry out towing and anchor handling operations in Offshore in case of AHT Ss.
To carry men and material between base and offshore installations, as well as between offshore installations only where such facilities are available.
To carry out stand by and rescue operations in offshore, if required.
To assist in exigencies arising in offshore.
To carry out routine surveillance in offshore for safety and security reasons
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL