9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding services classifiable under "Business Auxiliary Services"(BAS) during the period November, 2007 to September, 2008. The interest demanded on the tax amount confirmed is also sustained. 2.1 Facts of the case are that UTL, an assessee registered with the Department as a provider of services falling under Commercial Training or Coaching Center was found to have established e-Seva Technology application system on 'Built, Own, Operate and Transfer' (BOOT) basis to facilitate payment of utility bills, tax payments, issue of certificates, permits, licences etc. The e-Seva project run by the Andhra Pradesh State Government provided counters for payment of electricity bills, water and sewerage bills, telephone bills, property taxes et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the concerned departments themselves. 2.2 The project undertaken by UTL on BOOT basis covered East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna districts in Andhra Pradesh. As per the show cause notice dt. 12-12-2008, UTL maintained e-Seva centers which were nothing but multi-purpose cash counters where payments of various bills like telephone bills, electricity bills, property tax bills, road tax bills could be paid by any person. The center also sold cinema tickets, bus tickets etc. The scheme had been implemented by the State Government to provide a single window for facilitating various statutory payments such as utility bills, obtaining of certificates, permits, licences etc. The work involved has been outsourced and is being got do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Jt. Commissioner noted that he was entirely in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner. The Commissioner had found UTL to be a 'commission agent' who had maintained accounts of entities participating in the e-Seva project. However, the Original Authority decided the show cause notice in the instant case holding that the demand of service tax raised in the notice is sustainable under BAS and BSS. Accordingly, he confirmed demand of Rs. 15,68,451/- plus interest and imposed penalties on UTL under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. 2.3 In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Original Authority himself was not clear under which category of service the activity of the appellants was liable Service tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntract between them and the citizen and no consideration flows from the citizen to them. Nevertheless the fact remains that they provide service on behalf of the client i.e. Director, e-Seva for a consideration and hence the services rendered by them fall under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and thus liable to service tax. Hence, I hold that the appellants are liable to pay service tax with appropriate interest." He set aside the penalties imposed by the Original Authority but sustained the demand. 3. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, UTL raised the following grounds:- (a) The impugned order deserved to be set aside as the Commissioner had ignored most of the submissions made by the appellants. After findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, e-Seva nor acted as their agent. There was no principal-agent relationship among the participating entities in the e-seva scheme and therefore there was no basis for the appellate authority to treat the appellant as the technology partner. The appellants sought to vacate the impugned demand and penalties. 4. During hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order wrongly sustained the demand after finding that the show-cause notice had proposed to confirm demand against the appellants for services classified under BAS and BSS. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the demand of service tax under BAS and BSS confirmed by the Original Authority was 'weird'. The show-cause notice also contained this weir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. Director, e-Seva for a consideration. Hence, the services rendered by them fell under the BAS. Accordingly, he upheld the demand. 6. We find that no demand can be confirmed against any person towards service tax liability unless he/it is put on notice as to its exact liability under the statute. In the show-cause notice basic to the proceedings, the impugned activities were proposed to be classified under BAS and BSS. This proposal was confirmed by the Original Authority. We find that this order is not in accordance with the law. The impugned order held that UTL provided services on behalf of the client i.e. Director, e-Seva and sustained the demand. We find that under BAS, there are seven sub-clauses. Demand under sub-clause (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
