High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; declaration granted; refunds ...

Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association v. Union of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 19277 of 2013 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date
2016-10-31
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed. Declaration granted that the impugned provisions are ultra vires/unconstitutional. Service tax already collected shall be refunded to the respective parties. No stay granted.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; declaration granted; refunds ordered; no stay.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association
  • Hotel Karithika International
  • The Vijaya Castle
  • Panchajanyam Hospitalities
  • M/S.R.C.Park

Respondents

  • Union of India
  • Central Board of Excise and Customs and Services Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India
  • Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Central Taxes Kerala Zone
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri S. Arun Raj

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri N. Nagareesh
  • • Sri Ramavarma Reghunathan Thamburan
  • • Sri John Varghese
  • • Sri M. M. Jasmin

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the levy of service tax on services provided by air-conditioned or centrally heated restaurants, eating joints or messes, under the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2012. The petitioners, an association of hotels and several hotel businesses, contend that declaring such services as 'Declared Services' under section 66E read with 65B(22) and bringing them within the definition of 'service' under section 65B(44) is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament and thus unconstitutional. They rely on Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association v. Union of India (2013) and its subsequent upholding by the Division Bench in Union of India v. Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association (2014). The respondents argue that service tax has a residuary basis under Entry 97 of List I and that, even with overlapping taxable events, the central levy remains within Parliament's competence, supported by decisions like Assn. of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India and BSNL v. Union of India. The High Court, applying the Kerala line of authority and relying on the Constitution Bench decision in K. Damodarasamy Naidu & Bros., held that the challenged sub-clauses to Section 65 are beyond Parliament's competence. The court allowed the petition, declared the impugned provisions void, and directed refunds of service tax collected; no stay was granted. The decision relies on state-level precedent while noting ongoing Supreme Court proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

66E(i) read with 65B(22)65B(22)65B(44)66BChapter V of the Finance Act, 1994Finance Act, 2012Notification No.3 of 2013Notification No.25 of 2012

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that Clauses 66E(i) read with 65B(22) and 65B(44), as amended by the Finance Act 2012, declare services relating to air-conditioned or centrally heated restaurant services as ‘Declared Services’ and bring them within the service tax net. This, it is argued, is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and violates entries in the Seventh Schedule (List II). The petition relies on Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association v. Union of India (2013) and its later upholding by the Division Bench in Union of India v. Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association (2014). The petition seeks declarations that the impugned provisions are ultravires and void and seeks refunds of taxes collected. The argument emphasizes that the overlapping taxation of a single transaction cannot give Parliament unlimited taxing power and that refunds should be available for tax already collected.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the levy by asserting the residuary taxation power of the Centre under Entry 97 of List I and argue that overlapping does not negate the distinct aspects of a transaction, justifying central taxation. They rely on Supreme Court precedents such as Assn. of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India and BSNL v. Union of India to show that overlapping may occur across different taxable events and still be constitutionally valid. They contend that Notifications 3 of 2013 and 25 of 2012, read with Sections 66E(i), 65B(22) and 65B(44), are valid instruments of taxation and emphasize the need for a uniform levy across the country, with the matter also being subject to pending Supreme Court consideration.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association v. Union of India2013(4) KLT S.N 13 (C.No.11)PositiveThe court followed and applied this Kerala High Court decision to hold the challenged sub-clauses to be beyond Parliament's competence.
Union of India v. Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association2014 (4) KLT S.N.68 (C.No.85)PositiveDivision Bench upheld the Kerala decision and reinforced the same reasoning, supporting the present judgment.
Assn. of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India(2011(2)SCC 352)Mentioned OnlyCited by respondents to support central taxation in case of overlapping; not adopted as the basis of the present decision.
BSNL v. Union of India(2006) 3 SCC 1Mentioned OnlyCited for the principle that overlapping taxable events may exist; not the decisive basis for the decision.
K. Damodarasamy Naidu & Bros. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others(2000) 1 SCC 521PositiveConstitution Bench decision cited as foundational to the proposition that certain sub-clauses exceed legislative competence.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association v. Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 19277 of 2013 (H)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------** **1. KERALA CLASSIFIED HOTELS AND RESORTS ASSOCIATION, (REG.NO.T-1832/2009),TC NO.25/3592(2), NERRAZHI LANE, PULIMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **V.KRISHNAKUMAR & PRESIDENT G.SUBODHAN.** **2. HOTEL KARITHIKA INTERNATIONAL, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SURENDRADAS B.** **3. THE VIJAYA CASTLE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM-690 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N VIJAYAN PILLAI.** **4. PANCHAJANYAM HOSPITALITIES, THE ESQAURE INN, CHARUMOOD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.V.RAJAPPAN PILLAI.** **5. M/S.R.C.PARK,** **OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INAIDA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **2. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND SERIVES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHOI-110 001.** **3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL TAXES KERALA ZONE, C.R.BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.** **4. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695 001.** **R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAMAVARMA REGHUNATHAN THAMBURAN, SR.SC SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SC** **R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M.JASMIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **WP(C).No. 19277 of 2013 (H)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.25/2012 SERVICE TAX DATED 20/06/2012 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE),GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.3/2013 ST DATED 1/3/2013 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE),GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P3.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3/7/2013 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.14045/2011.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **------------------------** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.19277 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of October 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: _“a) to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Section 66E(i) r.w.s. 65B (22) and section 65 B(44) as inserted by the Finance Act 2012 by the amendment made to the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent the said provisions declares the service provided by the restaurant, eating joints or mess, in relation to serving of food and beverages (whether or not intoxicating) having Air Conditioning or Central Air heating in any part of the establishment at any time during the financial year; as 'Declared Service' under section 66E r.w.s 65B(22) and accordingly bringing under the definition of “Service” under section 65B(44) for the purpose of charging to service tax under section 66B of the Act' is illegal, ultravires, beyond the legislative competence of the parliament and unenforceable and liable to be struck_ W.P.C.No.19277/2013 2 _down as unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect;_ _b) to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Notification No:3 of 2013 dated 1-3-2013 and Notification No: 25 of 2012 dated 20-6-2012 (Sl.No.19) issued from the office of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India read along with sections 66E(i), 65B (22) and 65 B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act 2012; to the extend it seeks to levy service tax on the service provided by the restaurant, eating joints or mess, in relation to serving of food and beverages (whether or not intoxicating) having Air Conditioning or Central Air heating in any part of the establishment at any time during the financial year is illegal, ultravires, beyond the legislative competence of the parliament and unenforceable and liable to be struck down as unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect;_ _c) to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order_ W.P.C.No.19277/2013 3 _prohibiting the respondents from enforcing sections 66B, 66E(i) r.w.s. 65B (22) and Section 65 B (44) as inserted by the Finance Act 2012 by the amendment made to the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and notification No.3 of 2013 dated 1[st] March 2013 and Notification 25 of 2012 dated 20-06-2012; to the extend the said provisions seek to levy service tax on the service provided by the restaurant, eating joints or mess, in relation to serving of food and beverages (whether or not intoxicating) having Air Conditioning or Central Air heating in any part of the establishment at any time during the financial year.”_ 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that in the Finance Act, 2012 relating to levy and collection of service tax, a provision has been incorporated by which service provided by restaurant, eating joints or mess, in relation to serving of food and beverages (whether or not intoxicating) having Air Conditioning facility is part of service as defined under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the W.P.C.No.19277/2013 4 purpose of charging service tax. Petitioner is an association of Hotels and a few Hotels have approached this Court. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 supporting the stand taken in the statement. It is, inter alia contended that service tax is levied under the residual power of taxation in the Centre in terms of Entry 97 of List I., legislative competence of which has been upheld in various judgments of the Apex Court. Further, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the **Apex Court in Assn. of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India** [2011(2)SCC 352] and also **BSNL v. Union of India** _[(2006) 3 SCC 1]_ in order to contend that even if there is overlapping, when the transaction involves two or more taxable events in its different aspects, but overlapping does not detract from distinctiveness of aspects and therefore the imposition of service tax is well within the boundaries of legislative competence of the Central Government. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in **Kerala** ## **Classified Hotels and Resorts Association v. Union of India** _[2013(4) KLT S.N 13 (C.No.11)]._ This Court had placed reliance on W.P.C.No.19277/2013 5 the judgment of the Constitution Bench in **K.Damodarasamy Naidu & Bros. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others** _[(2000) 1 SCC 521]_ and had passed the following judgment: _“i) It is declared that sub Clauses (zzzzv) and (zzzzw) to Clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 as amended by the Finance Act 2011 is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament as the sub Clauses are covered by Entry 54 and Entry 62 respectively of List II of the Seventh Schedule._ _ii) That if any payments have been made by the petitioners on the basis of the impugned clauses, they are entitled to seek refund of the same.”_ 5. That was a case relating to charge of service tax on air conditioned restaurants where they were vending liquors and has licence to serve liquor. Since this case also stands in the same footing, I am of the view that the judgment in **Kerala Classified Hotels** (supra) applies to the fact situation of the present case also. The judgment in **Kerala Classified Hotels** (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in **Union of India** W.P.C.No.19277/2013 6 ## **v. Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association** _[2014_ _(4) KLT S.N.68 (C.No.85)]_ . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Further, no stay has been granted in the matter. Therefore, right now, I am inclined to follow the law laid down by this Court and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The declaration sought for is granted and service tax already collected shall be refunded to the respective parties. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr