TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of a cab and the terms rent a cab scheme operator means any person engaged in the business of renting cabs, and the cabs includes both motor cabs, maxi cabs, as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no dispute of the fact that the vehicle supplied by the appellant satisfied this criterion. There is no stipulation either in the Act or in the Rules that the person renting the cabs should also own the vehicles. So long as the person rents a cab either owned by him or cabs procured from elsewhere, the liability to pay service tax would arise and, therefore, the activity underta Regarding extended period of limitation - Held that:- the show cause notice has been issued within the time-limit specified and the demand is not ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rent-a-Cab service' along with interest thereon. In addition, penalties were also proposed for the contravention of the Service Tax Act and Rules and for suppression. Concealment of the correct value of the service under the provisions of Sections 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice was adjudicated and service tax demand was confirmed along with interest thereon. Further, a penalty of Rs, 17,77,448/- was imposed under Section 76, in addition to a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions. The appellant does not own any cab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem in August, 2002. In September, 2002 the department granted registration and sought information regarding date of commencement of the service and also to pay service tax @ 5% with applicable interest and to file relevant returns. In March, 2003 they had replied to the department informing that they are not operating under rent-a-cab scheme' and informed the department that the consideration received by them during the period 01/09/2001 to 31/05/2002 would be Rs 3.55 crore and thereafter a show cause notice dated 13 th October 2003 was issued to them. 3.2 It is the appellant's contention that they did not suppress any information from the department and therefore, extended period of time could not have been invoked by the department to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed any facts, the learned AR submits that information was provided to the department about the activities of the appellant and the consideration received for the same, only in March, 2003 and the show cause notice has been issued in October, 2003, i.e. within a period of one year from the date of knowledge, and, therefore, the demand is sustainable in law. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both the sides. We have also perused the agreement between the appellant and his client M/s. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the appellant was required to supply different types of vehicles of stipulated specifications for undertaking the pick-up/drop of their client's employees; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5.1 The appellant had placed reliance on a number of decisions, such as Kuldip Singh Gill, R.S. Travels, Sri Sai Krishna Travels, etc. wherein it has been held that transport services undertaken for transport of persons would not come under the purview of Rent-a-Cab Services' as the service undertaken is transportation of passengers. However, this decision of the Tribunal in the Kuldip Singh Gill's case has been overruled by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the same case reported in 2010 (18) STR 708 (P H) wherein it was held that the transport services provided by the respondent in that case was a taxable service under the category of Rent-a-Cab Services'. In view of the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Punjab Hary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch as the show cause notice has been issued on 13 th October 2003, i.e. within a period of one year from the date of knowledge, it cannot be alleged that the show cause notice is time barred, as has been held by the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. It is the date of knowledge of the activity by the department which is relevant for computing the time-limit and accordingly, we hold that the show cause notice has been issued within the time-limit specified and the demand is not time-barred. Since the appellant did not file any returns they are rightly liable to penalty under Section 77 and we uphold the same. As regards the imposed under Section 76 the said penalty is attracted for failure to pay service tax by the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
