Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Sicpa India Private Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 January, 2014

Author: Harish Tandon

Bench: Harish Tandon

ORDER SHEET

                               W. P. No. 67 of 2013
                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE


                            SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD
                                     Versus
                             UNION OF INDIA & ORS

  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON
  Date : 29th January, 2014.

                                                                    Appearance :

                                                       Mr. Ravi Raghavan, Adv.
                                                 Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                            ... for the petitioner

                                                         Mr. R. Bharadwaj, Adv.


                  The Court : The petitioner has assailed an order of the

CESTAT by which an application seeking waiver of the pre-condition deposit of

duty is disposed of. The petitioner claims that providing the technical know

how at a payment of        lumpsome royalty or on deferred payment does not

constitute the taxable services, so as to attract the service tax. The stand of

the department is that providing of technology by the person outside the

country on a payment of royalty comes within the purview with intellectual

property services and, therefore, the service tax is applicable on the petitioner.

Although the affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the respondents the petitioner

submits that all the relevant materials are already included therein to adjudicate the points evolved in the writ petition and, therefore, does not intend to file reply.

The petitioner says that there is a consistent view of the Tribunal on the above issues and, therefore, the Tribunal while passing the impugned order cannot have taken a contrary view. 2

This Court feels that the points have raised in this writ petition by the respective counsels required consideration let this matter be listed on 03.02.2014 (Monday) under the heading "hearing".

The interim order shall continue till 10.02.2014 or until further order whichever is earlier.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) sbi