- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have also scrutinized the records placed before us. The Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, challenging the communication of the Respondents sent to the Appellant herein requesting to supply the list of contractual assignment entered into between the private parties who have offered their buses on rent basis to the Appellant. In the said writ petition, the contention that was raised by the Appellant was that no service tax could be imposed by the Respondents on the buses hired by the Appellant in view of the fact that no service tax is imposed by the Respondents on the buses owned and possessed by the Appellant and, therefore, similar treatment is also to be afforded to the buses hired by the Appellant. It is contended that although recourse is taken and reliance is placed on Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 so as to demand payment of service tax from the owner of the buses, yet according to the Appellant the said provision is not applicable so far as the Appellant is concerned.
(3.) The contentions of the Appellant were taken notice of by the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. CCE and ST,2011 30 STT 398 passed by the High Court, the writ petition was dismissed holding that the Appellant is not the aggrieved party and cannot come in aid of the private bus operators so as to stall the endeavour and effort of the Respondents in collecting service tax from the private bus operators, although, the same have been hired by the Appellant in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act.;