TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the destination based consumption tax - All India Federation of tax practitioners vs. UOI (2007 (8) TMI 1 - Supreme Court) – Held that:- The appellant was an intermediary serving its client who was ultimate service provider - Show cause notice should not be read with hyper technicality – the intention of the subject, language and object of the show cause notice shall be understood in such manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice does not indicate nature of service provided to be "Business Auxiliary Service" for the reason that access code number was provided by the appellant to reach to the source of information to serve their purpose. That shall not bring the activity to the fold of section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. Most particularly, Section 65(19) (iii) and 65(19) (iv) does not cover the appellant's case at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hieve a common object of both is nothing but "Business Auxiliary Service". Therefore, ultimate service provider being benefited by its aiding or assisting agent shall bring the later to a category of Business Auxiliary service provider. 5. On the second count of demand Revenue submits that the authority held in Para 20.3 that Circular made it clear to tax the software. 6. Heard both sides and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of its client service provider giving source of information to the ultimate user through code number. Appellant's role was to connect the user of service with the provider to fulfil the object of each other consuming the service provided. We do not find any frustration of the contract by the parities in this case but fulfilment of object of the contract is patent. The appellant being in triangu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
