9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Recovery of service tax and penalty u/s 76 of Finance Act, 1994 for services received during a specific period, retrospective amendment affecting taxability of services, validity of show cause notice issued post-amendment.
In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE considered the issue of recovery of service tax and penalty u/s 76 of Finance Act, 1994 for services received from Goods Transport Operators (GTO) during a particular period. The Revenue sought to recover service tax and penalty, contending that the services were taxable due to a retrospective amendment, even though the show cause notice was issued post-amendment. The appellants argued that as per Apex Court rulings, demands could only be confirmed if the show cause notice was issued before the amendment covering the services. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice in this case was indeed issued after the amendment, and in line with the cited judgment, concluded that the demands could not be confirmed. Consequently, the impugned order confirming service tax and penalty was set aside, and the stay application and appeal were allowed. The Tribunal observed that the demands for service tax and penalty were based on the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, which brought the services received within the tax net. However, the crucial point of contention was the timing of the show cause notice, which was issued post-amendment. Citing the Apex Court ruling, it was held that demands could only be confirmed if the notice had been issued prior to the amendment covering the services. As the notice in this case was issued after the amendment, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order confirming the service tax and penalty. The learned Counsel representing the appellants emphasized that since the show cause notice was not issued before the retrospective amendment, the demands for service tax and penalty could not be validly confirmed. This argument was pivotal in the Tribunal's decision, as it aligned with the legal principle established by the cited judgment. The Tribunal carefully examined the records and concurred that the demands could not be upheld due to the timing of the show cause notice post-amendment. By adhering to the precedent set by the Apex Court ruling, the Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by overturning the order confirming the service tax and penalty. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the legal position established in the Apex Court ruling, which stipulated that demands for service tax and penalty could only be confirmed if the show cause notice had been issued prior to the amendment encompassing the relevant services. In this case, the show cause notice was issued subsequent to the amendment, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the demands could not be sustained. By following the rationale of the cited judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the service tax and penalty, thereby granting reprieve to the appellants.
|
