Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 93 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - Supply of Tangible Goods Service - Held that:- any service provided by a port or any person authorized by the port in relation to port service in any manner. Port service means, “any service rendered in a port in relation to vessels or goods”. In this case, there is no doubt that supply of bunkers is in relation to vessels. The question that arises is whether it can be considered as a sale only. In this case, it is not permissible for any one to supply water or bunker to vessels and to supply these items the port’s authorization is a must. Further, from the sample invoices reproduced in the show-cause notice, it is seen that the invoice mentions “supply of fresh water by barge as per nomination”. It has to be noted that in this case, supply of fresh water would include cost of procurement of water, transportation of the same to the vessel and other costs incurred in relation to provision of service in the port. From the invoice it is quite clear that it is not the cost of water alone that is charged, but it include cost of charges of other elements. Boat/barges have been supplied as seen from invoice. Since no Sales tax has been paid and no evidence has been shown that the transaction is a transaction of right to use and was liable to sale tax, the natural conclusion would be that the transaction is supply of tangible goods for use without parting with the right of possession and control. While the appellants have made a claim that the expenses incurred by them on fuel has not been proved to be incurred for the boats and barges supplied to their sister concern, they have also not shown that they had other barges and boats and the expenses incurred were in relation to other items and not to the boats/barges supplied. In the absence of any agreement, the only document available are invoices and invoices do not support the claim of the appellant. Appellants have not made out a prima facie case in their favour. At the same time, it also cannot be said that the case against the appellant is hundred per cent against them, since the matter has to be heard in greater detail to understand the nature of transaction and interpretations that are possible on the basis of facts. In these circumstances, it can be said that the appellants have not made out a case for complete waiver - Conditional stay granted.
|