Bombay High Court
Aban Offshore Ltd vs The Union Of India And Anr on 20 February, 2023
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Abhay Ahuja
1 18 wp 4101-22-os and 60 wp 4785-22-os
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4101 OF 2022
Aban Offshore Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Union of India and anr. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4785 OF 2022
Aban Abraham PTE Limited ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Union of India and anr. ... Respondents
---
Mr.Prakash Shah with Mr.Mohit Rawal i/by M/s PDS Legal, Advocates
for the Petitioners.
Mr.Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dhananjay Deshmukh,
Advocates for the Respondents.
---
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 20 FEBRUARY 2023.
P.C.:-
1. The Petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai. Both the Petitioners had entered into the contract of service with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (for short "ONGC"). The Respondent-Commissioner held that the fuel supplied free of cost by to the Petitioners had to be included in the taxable value of service provided by the Petitioners and therefore, Priya Soparkar Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA RAJESH RAJESH SOPARKAR SOPARKAR Date:
2023.02.23 10:56:19 +0530
2 18 wp 4101-22-os and 60 wp 4785-22-os confirmed the service tax demand as per the show cause notice issued to the Petitioners.
2. In Writ Petition No.4785 of 2022 the Petitioner had filed a rectification application. When the Writ Petition No.4785 of 2022 came up on board, the following order came to be passed :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner the impugned order has proceeded on the basis that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi1 is not applicable in the Petitioner's case, however in series of decisions identical to the facts of the Petitioner, the tribunal has taken view that it is applicable. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has applied for rectification of the impugned order dated 22 March 2021, however the same is not being decided and therefore the present Petition is filed. The request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Rectification Application be decided early is justified since it is pending for almost more than one and a half years.
4. Accordingly we defer the hearing of this Petition to 20 February 2023. We expect that by next date Authority would have decided the Rectification Application."
1 2013(9) TMI 294 CESAT New Delhi (LB) Priya Soparkar 3 18 wp 4101-22-os and 60 wp 4785-22-os
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner informs that the Respondent-Commissioner decided the rectification application in favour of the Petitioner and consequently the impugned order in original has been recalled. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the similar course of action needs to be followed in Writ Petition No. 4101 of 2022. In respect of Writ Petition No.4101 of 2022, the Petitioner has filed the rectification application on 22 March 2021. The learned counsel for the Respondents on instructions states that it is correct that rectification application has been allowed in case of Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4785 of 2022 and also that the order in Writ Petition No.4101 of 2022 also needs to be corrected/ rectified.
4. In light of this position, we dispose of Writ Petition No.4785 of 2022 as infructuous.
5. As regards Writ Petition No.4101 of 2022, we direct the Respondents to dispose of the rectification application made by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4101 of 2022 within period of 4 weeks from today in light of the disposal of the rectification application in case of Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4785 of 2022.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) Priya Soparkar