DOON SECURITY SERVICE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-71
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 25,2012

Doon Security Service Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Brahma Singh Verma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: - 1. A writ or order in the nature of mandamus, directing Union of -India (Respondent No. 1) to suitably amend Section 67(v) of the Finance Act, 1994 dealing with value of taxable service, inasmuch as the same is levying service tax on gross amount charged by such agency from the client without any abatement in respect to reimbursement of statutory wages and levies and/or to allow an abatement equivalent to the reimbursement of statutory wages and levies.
(2.) A writ or order in the nature of mandamus, directing CBEC (Respondent No. 2) to withdraw/suitably amend its clarification in its circular dated 7 -10 -1998 not allowing any abatement in respect to the reimbursement of statutory wages and levies in case of security agency and to suitably amend its finding that there is an employer employee relationship between the client and security workmen instead of their finding that there is an employer employee relationship between the security agency and the security workmen. A writ or an order in the nature of mandamus on BSNL (Respondent No. 4, 5 & 6) that in the event of confirmation of demand of service tax if any, on security agency; the same shall he borne by the service recipient, as provided by the Apex Court in their judgment in TN Kalyan Mandapam (supra).
(3.) ANY other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has raised a preliminary objection that the writ of mandamus cannot he granted to the petitioner because the petitioner had not approached the authority concerned and that there is no case of inaction on the part of the authority concerned, therefore, the reliefs as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present writ petition. 4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that so far as the prayer no. 1 sought in the present writ petition is concerned, no such direction can be issued to the Government to amend the law, therefore, the prayer no. 1 is outright rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.