|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 85 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1334
Reimbursement of amount of Service Tax - maintenance of street lights - if petitioners were required to pay service tax, then whether the same, if at all, could be recovered from respondent no.1 i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) or not? - It was held by High Court that During the relevant period, there was no exemption operating qua the payment of service tax on the maintenance of street lights - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. As such, the view taken by the High Court agreed upon.
SLP stands dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1332
Levy of service tax - construction of Approach Roads and Residential Premises within the factory of Classic Marble Company Private Limited - difference in the figures recorded in ST-3 vis-a-vis the actual receipts - HELD THAT:- In light of Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005, it is apparent that the activity of construction of roads is beyond the service tax net and therefore, demand of service tax on construction of road cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and appeal to that extent is allowed.
Demand of service tax on residential houses made for their clients namely Classic Marble Company Private Limited - demand confirmed on the ground that the activity of construction of road is a composite contrat for not only for construction of road but also for residential premises - HELD THAT:- When the residential complex is built for self use then it remains outside the service tax net - the demand on the construction of road and residential premises cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
Difference in the receipts towards exempted services shown in ST-3 return - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the impugned order does not contain adequate explanation for the said exempted services - The appellant has claimed that the variation is on account of inclusion of amount in service tax gross value/ VAT amount/ booking of TDS/ declaration of receipt entry - there are no mention of these facts in the impugned order nor does the impugned order contain any examination of this data. It is doubtful if this data was submitted before the original adjudicating authority - matter remanded back to original adjudicating authority to examine the reconciliation produced by the appellant, in these appeal papers decide afresh.
Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1308
CENVAT Credit - common inputs used of providing both taxable and exempted service - failure to maintain separate account as required under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1302
Condonation of delay of 1471 days in filing the appeal - only explanation provided for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court is that after the implementation of the GST Regime, the Indirect Taxes Department has undergone a major reshuffling in terms of the Commissionerates and their respective jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that the GST Regime was rolled out with effect from 01.07.2017 and the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 was passed thereafter. The department was duly represented before the learned CESTAT. The proceedings had emanated from the order in original passed on 31.03.2010, which was carried in appeal by the respondent that was disposed of by an order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and there could be no ground for confusion as to the transfer of jurisdiction of the officer that has passed the order in original.
Thus, it is difficult to accept that the appellant was handicapped in any manner in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the relevant Commissionerate. In any view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept that it would be apposite to condone the delay of more than four years on the aforesaid ground. The contention that confusion had persisted for such a long period cannot be countenanced.
Application dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1188
Rejection of declaration in Form-SVLDRS-1 - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is the Petitioner’s case that Petitioner never received the said communication of rejection of the declaration on 20 March 2020 either from Respondent No.4 or from the Designated Committed, prior to the 4th Respondent’s letter dated 17 February 2022, by which the letter dated Nil March, 2020 rejecting the declaration was enclosed - HELD THAT:- For being eligible under the SVLDR Scheme, a written communication of the amount of duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit would be a quantification on or before 30 June 2019, which need not be determined upon completion of investigation by issuance of Show Cause Notice or upon adjudication.
It is not in dispute that on 15 February 2018, the Superintendent of the Director General of GSTI and his team visited its office and Petitioner vide its letter dated 15 February 2018 informed the Superintendent that it had handed over the PPL to MCGM. From the definition of enquiry and investigation as set out above, it is clear that search of premises as in the case of Petitioner on 15 February 2018 falls under enquiry or investigation as defined in Section 121(m).
By the said communication it was submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to the cenvat & input tax credits since ultimate sale of flats was liable to tax as they had paid the same there would be no reason to issue Show Cause Notice nor impose any penalty and the proceedings be closed as they had complied with provisions of the Service Tax, MVAT and GST law. There has been no reply to this communication.
The Designated Committee instead of issuing Form 3 and followed with Form 4 to Petitioner, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21 June 2021. It is only pursuant to communication dated 14 February 2022 when request was made by Petitioner to issue Form SVLDRS-4 that vide communication dated 17 February 2022, the Respondent No.4- Additional Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise informed Petitioner that Form SVLDRS-1 filed by Petitioner had been rejected on 20 March 2020 and enclosed a copy of the said letter dated nil March 2020. Admittedly, the communication was handed over to the Petitioner on 17 February 2022. Even the SVLDRS portal still indicates the status of the applicant as “Agreed by Taxpayer” - It is not explained as to why if information was furnished to the Designated Committee vide letter dated 27 February 2020, a clarification was sought from the Petitioner on 22 January 2020, a date prior to the communication by the investigating agency.
The SVLDR Scheme is a legislation introduced for liquidation of legacy disputes on the one hand and recovery of unpaid taxes to the government on the other. The Respondent cannot contend that the portal was not updated. Once SVLDRS-2 has been issued and there has also been a follow up from the Respondents with respect to the said Form as well as the hearing that was fixed at the appointed date and time, the Respondent-Authorities cannot renege on the same. Particularly so in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where admittedly, the rejection of SVLDRS-1 was not communicated to Petitioner on 20 March 2020, but only communicated to them on 17 February 2022 i.e. after a request came from Petitioner to issue Form SVLDRS-4.
Having held that the amount of Rs. 4,60,96,697/-, is the amount quantified pursuant to communication dated 23 March 2018 to the DGGSTI and the Designated Committee having issued Form SVLDRS-2 to Petitioner on 16 January 2020 and the communication of rejection having been communicated to Petitioner only on 17 February 2022, the action of the Respondent Authorities ought to be quashed and set aside - the communication dated nil March, 2020 as well as the Show Cause Notice dated 21 June 2021 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1187
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Respondents had contended that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy under the statute of filing an appeal - Demand of differential service tax - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 states that instructions have been taken and the Commissioner who had passed the impugned order has expressed that there was an error in taking view and the decision in the case of M/S GO BINDAS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, (NOIDA) [2019 (5) TMI 1487 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] will have to be kept in mind and dealt with, and cannot be ignored.
In light of the stand taken by the Respondents, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29 January 2021 passed by Respondent No.2. The proceeding stands restored to file of Respondent No.2, and it will be decided as per law.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1186
Rejection of Petitioner’s application for the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - absence or inadequacy of reasons as to why the Petitioner’s application for the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was rejected - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the cases at hand, either there are no remarks or cryptic unclear remarks. The Respondents have filed exhaustive replies seeking to place on record the reasons. Therefore, it is for the first time in this Court an adjudication will have to take place on the basis of replies filed. Such position cannot be countenanced. The Respondents cannot be permitted to abdicate their duty to fill up the Remarks column in SVLDRS-3 in a meaningful manner. The failure to do so is adding to the already crowded docket of this Court.
The matters are remanded to emphasis upon and inculcate administrative discipline on the offices of the Respondents to provide reasons as required by the Statue, by setting aside the impugned orders/ communications and directing remedial action.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1185
Levy of service tax - services provided by the public sector undertaking formed by the Government especially for the purpose of soil conservation and land reclamation - exemption to specified service including conservancy as per N/N. 25/2012 - scope of the term conservancy - supply of tangible service - rent-a-cab service - HELD THAT:- The activity undertaken by the appellant would be specifically covered by the Notification No. 25/2012 –ST dated 20.06.2012 under Sr No.25 thereof. In view of services provided by the appellant would be exempt with effect from 20.06.2012 onwards under the notification.
It is also noticed that the entire amount received by the appellant from the government in the shape of grant is in the nature of reimbursement i.e. to say the actual expenditure incurred for the provision of the service is reimbursed by the Government of Gujarat. For that reason also the amount paid by the Government to the appellant cannot be taxed as does not fall within the definition of consideration for service. In these circumstances, there are no merit in the demand of service tax under the head of business auxiliary service against the appellant. The demand on this count is set aside and the appeal on this count is allowed.
Demand under the head of supply of tangible service - HELD THAT:- Neither show cause notice nor the impugned order gives any grounds to substantiate the claim that the physical possession and effective control of the equipment is not transferred to the clients but is retain to the appellant. In these circumstances, there are no evidence to support the charges levied on the appellant in regard to supply of tangible goods service - Demand on this count is also set aside and appeal is allowed.
Demand under the category of rent-a-cab service - HELD THAT:- There are substantial force in the argument of the appellant that this is not a service provider/ service recipient relationship. The appellants are not in the business of rent – a-cab providing rent a cab service and any recovery is made for private use of vehicle are in terms of the employment agreement. Thus, there are no merit in the argument of the Revenue - Demand on this count is also set aside and appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1184
CENVAT Credit - providing non-taxable output services also i.e. trading of goods as well as exempted output services - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - failure to produce any of the original input service invoices for verification by audit officers and submission of randomly selected photocopies of input services invoices on Cenvat credit availed - HELD THAT:- The appellant has violated provisions of Rule 5A (2) of the Service tax Rules, 1994. Further they had availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,10,60,401/- by making some consolidated entries in their Cenvat credit register during the period June 2014 to March 2015, which involves hundreds of input service invoices of 2007-2008 to 2013-14. The Cenvat credit has been availed without any proof of having valid documents as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They have not fulfilled the conditions of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - there is no manipulation in Cenvat credit register and all the documents and information has been provided to the department. All the original invoices are always available at their respective regional office where the input service is received. In this circumstance, the matter should go back to the adjudicating Authority for verification of the invoices /documents and Cenvat credit register maintained by the appellant - this matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to give another opportunity to the appellant to establish its entitlement.
The dispute relating to admissibility of Cenvat credit in the absence of exercise of option to avail proportionate Cenvat credit under the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is also remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision - the condition in Rule 6(3A) to intimate the department is only a procedural one and such procedural lapse is condonable and denial of substantive right for such procedural failure is unjustified.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter a fresh after verifying the Cenvat records of the assessee - the appeal are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1143
Interpretation of statute - meaning of expression ‘tax dues’ occurring in Section 124 (2) of the FA - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 - case of the Petitioners throughout has been that for the purpose of Section 124 (2) FA, which applies to the SVLDR Scheme, it had already paid in excess of the amount shown as payable - HELD THAT:- When the legislature usages two different expressions viz. 'duty' and ‘tax dues’, it is obviously done with a purpose. If the intention was that these expressions are interchangeable then the wording of Section 124(1) (a) FA would read differently. The tax dues in the present case referred to not just the duty amount, but duty plus interest or to put differently the total amount of duty payable which would include the main duty component and the interest component. This explains why under Section 123(a)(i) FA while defining the expression ‘tax dues’, the legislature has referred to “the total amount of duty which has been disputed”.
The Court is unable to agree the stand taken by the Department in the present case that notwithstanding the Petitioners having deposited already Rs.56,37,449/- as ‘tax dues’ as defined under Section 123(a) of the FA i.e., duty plus interest, it has still to pay a further sum of Rs.13,05,125/- for its application under the SVLDR Scheme to be considered - the impugned intimation dated 27th February, 2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-11) is hereby set aside and direction is issued to the Department to now take up for consideration the Petitioners’ application under the SVLDR Scheme without insisting on any further amount to be deposited by the Petitioners.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1142
Export of service - Place of performance / supply of service - Classification of services - Video Production Agency service or not - scope of Video Production Agency and Video-Tape Production - Palace of performance services on Goods - HELD THAT:- The inclusive leg of the definition pertains to the post-recording activity on video or transfer to another media by provider of service to qualify as ‘video-tape production’; there is no evidence that the material received by the respondent was recorded in video or that the respondent had, at any time, handled video as media.
The definition of an element contained in a particular ‘taxable service’ is not to be drawn upon, as a lexicon may be, for stretching of another service beyond legislatively intended limits. Even if it could, it would be a leap of faith by service tax authorities to conclude that visual dissemination is always of a ‘programme’ and, therefore, on ‘video’ as media. No evidence is forthcoming either that such is the case in the present factual matrix.
Export of services - Place of Provision of Service - HELD THAT:- It appears that service tax authorities have not appreciated the purpose, elucidated supra, and the context of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. These Rules do not operate as a charging provision within the narrow field of taxing imports or exempting exports; they are intended for taxing all manner of services within the frame of section 66B of Finance Act, 1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS & ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2007 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held levy under Finance Act, 1994 to be ‘destination-based consumption tax’ and, therefore, requiring consummation of the service to be linked to acknowledgement by recipient of the service. Consequently, by default, rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012, holds the service to have been rendered at the place of the recipient and other rules substitute in specific circumstances.
The deviation in rule 4(a) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and, considering the specific circumstance of determination by tangible presence, it would not be amenable to stretching for coverage of ‘deemed goods’, if any, owing to that limitation of pinpointing ‘service’ which is of essence in the said Rule.
The impugned order is sustained to the extent of determination that the respondent herein has exported services in accordance with Export of Service Rules, 2005 and rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for the relevant periods - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1141
SCN for recovery of tax - deemed recipient of service - service rendered in taxable territory owing to operation of rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 - HELD THAT:- It is trite that show cause notice proposes recovery that claims to be valid in accordance with specific provisions of the taxing statute and it is for the noticee to rely upon factual submissions and judicial decisions in its defence. The test of applicability of such decisions is not on record until raised in reply to notice; proceedings which accept such judgements as precedent may not necessarily have subjected the rigour of case law to contraindicated case law in the absence of rejoinder from tax authorities - Appeal is the first stage for countering the ‘precedent value’ and it has been placed on record by Learned Authorized Representative that contrary decisions are not only on similar facts but also that certain relevant judgments had not been considered in the decisions cited before the adjudicating authority by the assessee.
It would be appropriate for the original authority to take a fresh look at the facts that have not been subjected to detailed scrutiny for proximity to the several decisions cited by both sides - the impugned order is set aside in its entirety - direction to restore adjudication of show cause notice to the original authority with the direction that the judicial decisions and other submissions, if any, be disposed off after detailed consideration.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1140
Refund - Excess amount deposited SVLDRS as Voluntary Disclosure Scheme - grievance of appellant is that the tax dues which were already paid by the appellant have not been adjusted by the designated authority - HELD THAT:- It is observed from the record of this appeal that this bench gave an opportunity to the appellant to submit Forms SVLDRS 1 to 4 so as to prove that he raised his disagreement before the designated authority but the appellant has filed SVLDRS-1, 3 and 4. SVLDRS- 2/SVLDRS-2B has not been placed on record. It becomes clear that appellant has failed to prove its disagreement to the amount quantified as payable by the designated authority. The disagreement has been the main contention of appellant’s argument, same stands totally unproved. Otherwise also, it being a case of voluntary disclosure, the appellant had to self assesse the payable amount in SVLDRS-1. The self declaration form has also not been produced by the appellant.
Rejection of refund in terms of Section 124(2) and 130 of Finance Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Since the tax liability for the period in question is actually either 70% or 50% higher than the amount estimated as payable under the scheme, any deposit prior payment of such estimated amount is made nonrefundable. In case of voluntary disclosure also it is an uncalculated amount as per tax payers’ choice which is declared and paid by the appellant. The liability of tax payer in such case is much more than what used to be mentioned in SVLDRS-1 under Voluntary Disclosure. Hence, there is no applicability of article 265 of the Constitution of India as is impressed upon by the appellant - there are no justifiable reason for ordering refund of the amount which was paid over and above the payable amount as estimated by the designated committee.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1104
Classification of Services - Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Service - activity “Dismantle” is different from the activity “demolition” or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant had merely carried out dismantling activity. This activity, in no way, can be considered as a taxable service under the category of “site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition service” inasmuch as the work assigned under the work order for do not attract any of the clauses itemized in the definition provided under Section 65(97a) ibid. Thus, the activities undertaken by the appellant will not fall under the taxing net for levy of service tax under the disputed taxable service. There is merit in the finding of the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore, the work undertaken by the respondent cannot be termed as an activity of “Site formation and clearance, excavation & earthmoving & demolition”.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1049
Constitutional Validity - Chargeability of service tax on sale and supply of electricity - Section 66D(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the impugned Notification No. 32/201 0-Service Tax, dated 22-6-2010 - petitioner’s challenge to Section 66Dk of the Act is premised on the basis that placing the service relating to transmission or distribution of electricity by electricity transmission or distribution utility would mean that consumption of electricity is chargeable to service tax - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that by virtue of the said notification, the Government of India has “exempted taxable services provided to any person by a distribution licensee, a distribution franchisee or any other person by whatever mean called as authorized to distribute the power under the Electricity Act, 2003, from the scope of Section 66 of the Act”. This notification also cannot be construed to mean that consumption of electricity as otherwise is chargeable to tax but for the said notification - impugned notification has no bearing on this contention.
Seeking a declaration that sale and supply of electricity is not chargeable to service tax under any of the sub clauses of Section 65 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner manages a mall. The petitioner receives supply of 4000 KV from the electricity distribution company for Non-Domestic High Tension on 11 KVA for its own use at the given premises (Plot no.67, DLF Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015 - hereafter the Mall). The petitioner has entered into agreements with various shop owners / licensees in the said mall and makes available the electricity on sub meter basis. The petitioner claims that the charges received from various shop keepers are essentially towards service charges as well as for the purchase of the electricity - It is his contention that not limiting the levy of service tax to the component of services provided by the petitioner and extending it to the costs of electricity is impermissible. According to petitioner, no service tax can be levied on the component which constitutes the cost of the electricity. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that service tax is not payable on the cost of supply / generation of electricity.
Mr. Harpreet Singh seeks time to take instructions in this regard and to advance arguments.
List for hearing on 27.02.2023.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1048
Demand made by issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 - demand on the ground that the tax dues comprise of only duty amount and, therefore, only deposit of any stage is allowed under Section 124 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019 pertaining to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, paid an amount of Rs.1,49,35,618/- electronically out of which a sum of Rs.1,09,06,948/- was deposited under the Accounting Code 00441480 as tax receipts and Rs.40,28,670/- was deposited under Accounting Code 00441481 towards interest under other receipts. That, during the pendency of the show cause notice, Petitioner had also requested for change of Accounting Code in respect of the interest amount to the Accounting Code relevant to tax receipts which request was also pending when the SVLDR Scheme was notified pursuant to which the Petitioner filed a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 to avail of the scheme. The Designated Committee has issued form SVLDRS-3 without adjusting the amount of interest as tax dues, the reason being that “any amount paid” referred to in Section 124(2) referred to the tax dues as contained in Section 123(b) of the Finance Act which refers to the amount of duty as defined in Section 121(d) - The SVLDR Scheme is a beneficial legislation, not only for liquidation of legacy disputes for the benefit of the tax payers but also for recovery of unpaid taxes: it is a scheme for amicable resolution of disputes and in the interest of revenue. The Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly provide that the declarant would be entitled to benefits in the form of waiver of interest, fine, penalty and also immunity from prosecution. Keeping in mind these objectives, failure to adjust interest paid by the Petitioner, appears to be hyper-technical and should not come in the way of implementation of schemes of this nature.
Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits of this scheme just because the amount of interest was deposited under Accounting Code 00441481 (Other Receipts (interest)) and not under 00441480 in respect of tax receipts which change of Accounting Code was pending with the Respondents Authorities at the time of filing of Form SVLDRS-1 by the Petitioner. Petitioner, cannot be penalized for depositing the amount under different head. Once the provision speaks of “any amount paid” without distinguishing between the heads of tax or between tax, interest or penalty, the provision mandates the deduction of the amounts deposited prior to issuance of the show cause notice.
As rightly observed by the Madras High Court in M/S. VAMSEE OVERSEAS MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DESIGNATED COMMITTEE [2021 (2) TMI 801 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the object of the scheme should not be lost sight of, as the scheme has itself been formulated for the smooth settlement of disputes. The interpretation of the provisions thereof should be to carry forward the object rather than to frustrate the same giving rise to more litigation. In our view, had the Designated Committee taken a pragmatic view, more so, in the light of the law settled by atleast three High Courts, this litigation was clearly avoidable.
The Designated Committee ought to have given due credit of the sum of Rs. 40,28,670/- as interest deposited by Petitioner was prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice - Form 3 issued by the Designated Committee cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1047
Levy of service tax - Tour Operator Service - case of Revenue is that appellant recovered the actual ticket fares from the customers but paid only the agreed price to the Airlines, which was much less than the ticket cost - Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant would get covered under taxable service provided under tour operator service? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the agreement the appellant conducting tours, offering specially designed package tour to their customers and are operating as “Tour Operator” and are booking tickets as per the agreement. Whereas they are paying service tax under the category of “Air Travels Agent Service” however appellant are liable for payment of Service tax on the total value of ticket which includes the cost of package tour provided by Appellant under the category of “Tour operator Service”.
The ‘Tour Operator’ has been defined under Section 65(115) ibid to mean ‘any person engaged in the business of planning, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sightseeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport, and includes any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) or the rules made there under’. The scope of service was substantially enhanced by the Finance Act (No.2) of 2004 by including “ the person who are engaged in planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tour by wherever means like rail, air, waterway, etc.” - On a conjoint reading ibid, it reveals that the person providing business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours should fall under the ambit of taxable category of Tour Operator Service for the purpose of payment of service tax. On perusal of the disputed package features, it is clear that prima-facie appellant is not providing any consultancy in the nature of planning, scheduling, organizing and arranging tour on behalf of the particular tour for the passengers.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Appellant were paying service tax under the category of “Air Travel Agent Service” and also filed ST-3 accordingly. The adjudicating authority have not properly examined the fact whether there is a suppression of facts or otherwise. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was also not considered properly.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
-
2023 (1) TMI 995
Business Support services - Branch Network Fee - whether the ‘Branch Network Fee’ received by the appellant under the agreements is taxable under ‘Business Support Service’? - time limitation - it was held by Tribunal that the proceedings are barred by limitation of time and hence, the appeal should succeed on the ground of limitation as well.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere in this Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2023 (1) TMI 994
Levy of Service Tax - activity of renting/leasing - HELD THAT:- Having gone through the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 with respect to the Service Tax and Section 65 (105) (zzzz) and Section 66D and taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NEW MANDI YARD, ALWAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ALWAR [2022 (2) TMI 1113 - SUPREME COURT], the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant-Marketing Committee is liable to pay the service tax on activity of renting/leasing, which was carried out at the relevant time.
No interference of this Court is called for - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 993
Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - availability of rebate in arrears of tax - HELD THAT:- There is no challenge to the constitutionality of this Scheme.
Reliance is placed by counsel for the Revenue on a decision of Apex court in the case of M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] where it was held that The High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously.
This Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by Apex Court - Petition dismissed.
|
