Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (7) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on addressed to the Assistant Registrar of Tribunal and signed by an unnamed person for Lakshmikumaran and Sridhanan was filed in Court today and none was found to be present to state reasons of default of Appellant or its Authorized Representative. The application stated that the matter is listed today for final hearing at serial number 37 and Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate who is authorized to appear in this matter is unable to appear due to his personal reasons. Prayer was made therein to adjourn to a short date after two weeks. 3. The application aforesaid not being signed naming the signatory, an enquiry was made from record to ascertain whether any Vakalatnama of Sri K.S. Venkatagiri is existing on record. But on thorough scrutiny of record containing 8 pages of order sheets and 278 pages appeal memo and other papers (in appeal folder I) no vakalatnama was found on record. The Court Master accordingly noted as under; No vakalatnama has been filed by any one in this case. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate who sought for adjournment has also not filed vakalat. 4. Record further revealed that although early hearing application of Revenue was allowed on 6.6.2011, for hearing t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct that it is being so executed. For example, when a father and the minor children are parties, invariably there is a single signature of the father alone in the Vakalatnama without any endorsement/statement that the signature is for 'self and as guardian of his minor children'. Similarly, where a firm and its partner, or a company and its Director, or a Trust and its trustee, or an organisation and its office bearer, execute a Vakalatnama, invariably there will be only one signature without even an endorsement that the signature is both in his/her personal capacity and as the person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporate body/firm /society/organisation. (g) Where the Vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, failure to disclose that it is being executed by an Attorney-holder and failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney; (h) Where several persons sign a single vakalatnama, failure to affix the signatures seriatim, without mentioning their serial numbers or names in brackets. (Many a time it is not possible to know who have signed the Vakalatnama where the signatures are illegible scrawls); (i) Pleaders engaged by a client, in tur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpliance should be made with the letter and spirit of the law and our directions pertaining to execution of vakalatnamas. Similarly, to the Registrars of the Tribunals and Foras functioning in Delhi, a copy of this order may be sent for compliance. (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is surprising that in this case, Advocates from the cited law firm have appeared earlier and have obtained waiver of pre-deposit and stay without there being any vakalatnama in their favour. In the absence of a valid vakalatnama, they can neither be allowed to represent the appellants nor any adjournment request from them can be entertained. Hence, the adjournment request is declined. 8. Considering that the appeal is already 3 years old and prayer of Revenue was to expeditiously dispose the appeal due to blockage of crores of rupees of tax and penalty involved in the appeal as well as Appellant's knowledge of hearing granted by the Miscellaneous order aforesaid, the matter was taken up for hearing with assistance of Representative for Revenue. 9. Heard Revenue. 10. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Id. Commissioner (AR) for Revenue submitted that for the period March 2004 to September 2007, the Appellant was recipi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ook with effect from 18.4.2006 to tax the taxable services provided by foreign service providers having no permanent address or usual place of residence in India. The service so provided made recipients of the service in India who have their place of business or fixed establishment or permanent address or usual place of residence is in India, liable to pay the service tax as if such service is provided by the recipients in India. Also Rule 2(i)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 made provision for recovery of service tax from such recipients. Thus the value of service received by the appellant prior to 18.4.2006 shall not be liable to tax and adjudication order to such extent shall get modified following the decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. Indian National Shipowners Association (2010) 24 STT 366 (SC) where the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India (2009) 18 STT 212 (Bom.) holding no liability arises against assessee was merged. 14. The crucial ground of appeal which caused anxiety to Revenue is valuation of taxable service. While appellant claimed that assessable value of Consultancy Engineering service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cy Agreement as was examined by notice issuing authority noticed that to be net of all duties, taxes and other Government charges which, where applicable were payable in addition to the price. Accordingly, Revenue held that income deducted at source formed part of gross amount of consideration paid to foreign consultant. It appears that there were 22 service providers as per Annexure to Show Cause Notice appearing at page 58 to 61 of the Paper Book filed by the appellant. But no agreement copy was available on record or Paper Book. There was no pleading on material facts by the appellant as to how the facts in issue suggest and support defence of appellant that income tax deducted at source shall not form part of the gross amount of taxable service received when Rule 7(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 provides that actual consideration charged for the service provided or to be provided shall be assessable value in respect of services covered by Section 66A of the Act. Therefore, the expression what is 'actual consideration charged for service provided or to be provided' shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, in terms of Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates