TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge mechanism under Section 66A of the Act, in view of the provisions of the proviso to Rule 3(iii) of the Taxation of Service (provided outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006; Regarding agreements entered prior to 16.5.2008 - held that:- The transactions covered by long-term charter agreements - for the tankers "Disha" and "Raahi" are outside the purview of the taxable STGU, under Section 65 (105)(zzzzj); since the agreements and the delivery of these tankers pursuant to the agreements (the taxable event), occurred prior to 16.5.08, the date of introduction of this taxable service; and Penalty u/s 76 to 78 - Held that:- The facts and circumstances justify invocation of the provisions of Section 80, to delete imposition of penalties under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. Consequently, the imposition of penalties is invalid. The amounts remitted by the appellant towards service tax and interest, under protest, shall be refunded forthwith - Decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.745 of 2012 - 58076/2013 - Dated:- 24-10-2013 - G Raghuram And Sahab Singh, J. For the Appellants : Shri Sujit Ghosh And Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava, Adv. For the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into a short term TCA. One such agreement was entered into with Trinity LNG Transport, vide agreement dated 30.4.2009 for hiring the LNG tanker "Trinity Glory". The short term TCA and the TCA's are collectively referred to as "Agreement". 6. The impugned adjudication order, in respect of the SCN dated 22.4.2010 confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.50,07,43,385/-; penalty of Rs.50,01,43,385/- under Section 78; penalty of Rs.5000/-under Section 77; besides interest under Section 75. There was no mention of penalty under Section 76. In respect of the SCN dated 12.9.2011, Rs.3,77,00,597/- was assessed towards service tax, besides penalties under Sections 76 and 77; penalty under Section 78 and interest levy was not indicated. In respect of the SCN dated 13.10.2011, Rs.38,58,43,597/- was assessed towards service tax besides penalties under Sections 76 and 77. No interest levy under Section 75 was specified but penalty under Section 78 was eschewed. 7. By the corrigendum dated 24.4.12 the quantum of penalty assessed under Section 76, (in respect of SCNs dated 12.9.11 and 13.10.11), was modified. The corrigendum dated 29.5.12, (in respect of SCN dated 22.4.10), amended the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of delivery (Refer Vol III of the Appeal Memo page 735) 9. Since the service tax liability is determined for having provided the taxable service as enumerated in Section 65(105) (zzzzj), we extract the provision: Section 65(105): 'taxable service' means any service provided or to be provided: (zzzzj) "to any person, by any other person in relation to supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for use, without transferring right of possession and effective control of such machinery, equipment and appliances". It requires to be noticed that the assessee already deposited Rs.50,07,43,385/-; Rs.14,00,765/- and Rs.38,47,45,522/- as against the substantive tax demand assessed in respect of the three show cause notices covered by the impugned adjudication order, i.e. a substantial portion of the basic tax demand assessed. This fact is also recorded. This Tribunal on 11.6.12 granted waiver of pre-deposit of the balance adjudicated liability. 10. The case of the assessee, asserted before the adjudicating authority and reiterated before us:- a) That the assessee owns and operates LNG receiving, storage and re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanker does not fully conform to clause 5, the assessee shall have the right to refuse acceptance of the tanker and to require the owners to undertake necessary modifications, at the owner's cost to ensure that the tanker conforms fully to clause 5 and to the satisfaction of the assessee. - Clause 5 of the agreement stipulates the description of the tanker relating to its fitness; the classification of the tanker as per highest international standards including India; providing documents/information and manuals pertaining to the tanker to the assessee; registration of the tanker as approved by the assessee; obtaining and placing on board of the tanker valid registrations/ authorizations/ approvals/ permits etc. for safe navigation and Admiralty publications, as described in the clause. - Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that the appointment of the Manager, Master and other crew of the tanker shall be to the satisfaction of the assessee; that the personnel on board the tanker must work under instructions and directions of the assessee; and that records must be maintained by the personnel and periodical returns submitted to the assessee. There are other stipula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted lien, mortgage etc. without the prior written consent of the assessee. - Clause 21 specifies terms as to the immunity of the assessee from the liability to payment of hiring charges in case of loss of time for any reason including non-performance of the tanker or functional deficit including strike, breach of orders etc. by the master, officers and crew and deviation of the tanker etc. - Clause 31 sets out conditions pertaining to the obligations of the owners to indemnify the assessee in specified circumstances. - Clause 34 stipulates that the owner shall obtain and maintain marine and war risk insurance for the tanker and specifically that the assessee's name must be included as a co-assured. The assessee is also authorized to seek additional insurance. - Under Clause 38 the owner is required to obtain prior written consent of the assessee before transferring its rights for financing or refinancing of the tanker. The assessee is specifically authorized the right to sub-let the tanker, after notice to the owner. - Clause 39 stipulates the owner's responsibility to comply with pollution norms etc. - Clause 46 authorises th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the assessee on various technical aspects relating to design, plans, systems, tests and trials of the tanker. The assessee also furnished its comments on several technical aspects of the construction. (h) After the construction, the tankers were delivered to the assessee on the dates set out in the Table, at para 8 (supra) at South Korea. The consultant, on authorisation by the assessee took delivery of the tankers on its behalf . The delivery was effectuated under certificates of delivery, which clearly indicate that the delivery was given by the builder to the authorised representative of the assessee. (i) As mandated by provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, the assessee obtained necessary licences for the tankers from the Directorate General of Shipping, for facilitating entry of the tankers into India. Licences were obtained in the assessee's name. Copy of the licence is on record. (j) The specification as to the flag, the country of registration (Malta), the names of the tankers (Disha and Rahi), the logo, the colour of the funnel (specifying the logo and name of the assessee) are in compliance with the specifications of the assessee; (k) Even in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds for Use, enumerated and defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Act, on the reverse charge basis? Other and alternative issues will be considered under separate headings. 12. The adjudicating authority concluded that the transaction falls within taxable "STGU". The assessee/appellant contests this conclusion. The reasons for the conclusion of the adjudicating authority are:- (a) There is no transfer of possession and control by the owner in favour of the assessee, which is a pre-condition for the levy. For this conclusion, the Commissioner set out three principal reasons:- (i) All the statutory licences, permissions, insurance etc are in the name of the owners; not the assessee; (ii) Though the assessee has the right to inspect the vessels this does not detract from the authority of the owner over the vessels. Consequently, the legal consequence as to use of the vessels, remains with the owner; and (iii) The agreement provides that the in case Government requisitions the vessels, the hire charges paid by the Government shall be retained by the owners. Thus, the legal right over the vessels is not completely extinguished in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he constitutional limitation upon the legislative field of Parliament. Post the 46th amendment to the Constitution and introduction of Article 366 (29A)(d), transfer of the right to use goods is 'deemed sale', falling within the purview of the legislative field of a State to tax 'deemed sale', as sale. The power to tax what is a 'deemed sale' as service is thus outside the authorised legislative field of Parliament. To avoid any misconception in execution of the provisions of the Act, Parliament specifically excluded transactions involving "transfer of the right of possession and effective control of tangible goods" from the purview of service tax, by incorporating the exclusionary clause in Section 65(105)(zzzzj). 14. The scope of the 46th amendment to the Constitution and introduction of the concept of 'deemed sale', was considered in several judgments. In 20th Century Finance Corporation and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 6. SCC. 12 the Supreme Court clarified that the levy of (sales) tax is not on the use of goods but on the transfer of the right to use goods. The right to use goods accrues only on account of transfer of the right; the right arises only on the transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impossible to work out a completely logical and precise definition of "possession" uniformly applicable to all situations in the contexts of all statutes. Dias Hughes in their book on Jurisprudence say that if a topic ever suffered from too much theorizing it is that of "possession". Much of this difficulty and confusion is (as pointed out in Salmond's Jurisprudence, 12th Edition, 1966) caused by the fact the possession is not purely a legal concept "Possession", implies a right and a fact the right to enjoy annexed to the right of property and the fact of the real intention. If involves power of control and intent to control". 17. The Gauhati High Court in HLS Asia Ltd, vs. State of Assam and Ors. (2003) 132 STC 217 (Gauhati), considered whether the transaction in issue therein was a 'deemed sale', warranting imposition of sales tax. The petitioner before the High Court was the owner of high technology equipment used in wire line logging and perforation activities. The operations are done by the use of the high technology equipment deep into the earth through holes drilled into the oil field for identification and mapping of electronic seismic impulses, which are then processe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statute - viz, a "transfer of the right to use" and not merely a licence to use the goods; and e) having transferred the right to use the goods during the period for which it is to be transferred, the owner cannot again transfer the same rights to others. 19. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle, Visakhapatnam (1990) 77 STC 182 (AP), the issue was whether hire charges recovered by the petitioner for supply of machinery to contractors for execution of its works was exigible to sales tax under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as a 'deemed sale' . The High Court held that since the effective control of the machinery even during use by the contractor remained with the petitioner and the contractor was not free to make use of the same for other his works or to move them out during the period the machinery was in his use; despite a condition that the contractor would responsible for the custody of the machinery while on the site, there was no transfer of the right to use of the machinery. Therefore the transaction was not liable to be treated as a (deemed) sale. 20. In G.S. Lamba and Sons vs. State of A.P. (2011) 43 VST. 323 (AP) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the name of owner (transferor) of the goods, and (vi) during the period of contract exclusive right to use goods along with permits, licences etc., vests in the lessee. (42) ...Admitting that the Petitioners are in possession of a fleet of Transit Mixers used for carrying RMC, and further admitting that Grasim was looking for a transporter of RMC, the recitals reveal that both the parties entered into an agreement for transporting RMC by using the vehicles owned by the Petitioners. Though the phrase 'offer services to take care of transporting solution needs' is used the real purpose, as can be seen from the second part, is to enable Grasim to have the right to use the Transit Mixers. The agreement requires the Petitioners to provide drivers to be dressed in uniform, and all of them are to obey the lawful instructions issued by Grasim. Further RMC has to be delivered by these drivers in Transit Mixers only at the time and places as instructed by the officials of Grasim, and the Petitioners have no right to carry RMC wherever and whenever they like. Thus the full control on the method, manner and time of using the Transit Mixers, owned by the Petitioners vests absolutely in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Orissa High Court observed: "13. ...that for all practical purposes, the effective or general control of the vehicle under the agreement rests with the Corporation. Though the owner has to provide a driver and has to carry out the necessary repairs, we do not think if it can be held that the effective control of the vehicle remains with the owner after the agreement is executed. According to us, there is acquisition of possession of the bus, as distinguished from its custody, by the Corporation, and loss of possession so far as the owner is concerned. There is thus transfer of possession of the bus as both the aspects mentioned by Salmond in this regard, which have been noted above, are satisfied and consequently there is transfer of the right to use the same. 14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present was the case of "sale" within the extended meaning of this word, inasmuch as there was transfer of the right to use the vehicle for valuable consideration". 22. In Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. [2004] 136 STC. 519 (Kar), the appellant a public limited company owned towing vessels and entered into a charter pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further provides that the contractor should indemnify the charterer against the consequences or liabilities arising from the master, officers or agents for their lawful actions as well as from any irregularity in the vessel's papers. From the reading of various stipulates referred to above in the agreement, the only conclusion that could be reached is that there has been transfer of tug for use by the appellant to the NMPT. Merely because, the appellant is required to undertake to maintain the vessel during the period of charter, would not, in any manner, support the contention of the appellant that there has not been a transfer of right to use the tug by the appellant to the NMPT". 23. Administrative understanding/construction of STGU: Board Circular No.334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.02.2008, inter alia issued clarifications in respect of the proposed taxable service - STGU. Paragraph 4.4 of the circular clarified that the transfer of the right to use any goods is leviabe to sales tax/ VAT as deemed sale of goods; the transfer of the right to use involves transfer of both possession and control of the goods to the user of the goods; and that the proposal is to levy service tax on su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the right to transfer the ownership of the tanker to any other entity during the period of hire, without the prior written consent of the appellant. This ingredient also brings the transactions within the fold of deemed sale, in view of the decision in BSNL; (iv) Master, Manager, other personnel and the crew on board the tankers are to be appointed by the owner but such appointment must be acceptable to the assessee. The personnel cannot be changed without the assessee's consent. The assessee, in specified circumstances is authorised to require the owner to change the personnel, to complain of their conduct to the owner and on such complaint, the owner must investigate and if reasonable cause exists, must change the appointment of crew or personnel. These factors are considered significant indicators of transfer of possession and effective control - vide Krushna Chandra Behera and G S Lamba; (v) The voyages, the loading and unloading of LNG are to be in terms of and under instructions/directions of the assessee. The bills of lading to be filed for and on behalf of the assessee and as per its direction. The Manager though engaged by the owner must operate the tankers as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of the owners and not the assessee, the transfer of the legal right to use of the tankers is not complete; and this condition was not satisfied. This is a fundamentally and clearly fallacious application of the principles in BSNL to the facts of the case. (b) The authority further notes that under clause 26 of the agreement, in case any Government or competent authority requisitions a tanker during the charter period, no hire charges are payable by the assessee and any compensation paid in such circumstances by Government or other competent authority in respect of such requisitioned period shall be retained by the owner though such period shall be counted as part of the charter. From this clause in the agreement, the authority infers that the legal right of the owner over the tankers is not completely extinguished in favour of the assessee. According to the Authority, this condition is inconsistent with clause (e) of the ingredients of the transfer of the right to use goods, spelt out in para 91 of the BSNL judgment. This conclusion by the adjudicating authority is equally misconceived. When goods are requisitioned by Government or other competent authority, such req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees of the owner; are paid overtime etc. by the owner; under clause 7 the owner is required to maintain the tanker with regard to wear and tear; under clause 12 it is obligation of the owner to pay for provisions of the vessel, wages of the personnel and other employees, bear the expenses, stores lubricants, spares, water etc. and the cost of expenses for survey and overhauling, there is no transfer of the possession and effective control of tankers by the owner to the assessee. 29. It requires to be noticed that this contention adverted to in the written submissions is not among the reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority for coming to the conclusion that there was no transfer of the right to use, of the tankers. It is axiomatic that it is impermissible for the respondent-Revenue to invent new grounds, not forming part of the adjudication order to sustain the adjudication order. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16; a public order publicly made must be tested on the basis of reasons recorded therein and cannot be supplemented by reasons contrived in a later affidavit or as in this case by way of writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x payable by the time charterers, under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Income tax officials issued a demand notice to the respondent for payment of the stipulated amount towards income tax. Challenging the same the respondent filed a Writ Petition which was allowed by the Judicial Commissioner, Goa. The issue before the Supreme Court, on an appeal by the Union of India, was whether the contract between the chaterer and the owners of the ship was for conveyance of goods or for the use and hire of the vessel. The Supreme Court concluded that the amount which the time charterers were required to pay to the owners of the ship was not payable on account of carriage of the goods but was payable on account of the use and hire of the ship. The following observations, forming part of the analysis by the Supreme Court clarify the nature of the transaction:- "Indeed, the other terms of the charter party and the general tenor of the document show that the payment was in fact to be made by the time-charterers for use and hire of the ship. Under the agreement, charterers had the "liberty to sublet" the vessel for all or any part of the time covered by the agreement. The Captain of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such cases the contract is really one of letting the ship, and, subject to the express terms of the charterparty, the liabilities of the shipowner and the charterer to one another are to be determined by the law which relates to the hiring of chattels and not by reference to the liabilities of carriers and shippers." The Supreme Court also refers to the following passage in "Scrutton on Charterparties": "charterparties fall into three main categories (i) charters by-demise (ii) time charters (not by way of demise), and (iii) voyage charters. Sometimes categories (i) and (ii) are both referred to as time charters as distinguished from category (iii), and they have this in common that the shipowner's remuneration is reckoned by the time during which the charterer is entitled to the use of services of his ship". The Supreme Court concluded that the Clause 4 in the charterparty (in issue before it) provides for payment "for the use and hire" of the vessel at the stipulated rate for the stipulated period and duration; that the relevant clauses of the charterparty show that the Aluminium Company took the ship from its owners on a time-charterparty; that the owners were entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd levied service tax on the respondent on the consideration received on time-charter agreements, hiring out vessels to charterers, under provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On the facts of the case before it and analysis of the various clauses in the time-charter agreement (para 44), the High Court concluded that possession was not handed over to the charterer, resulting in transfer of the right to use and effective control of the vessel; and therefore there was no deemed sale by way of transfer of the right to use for any purpose. The High Court on the basis of its finding/ conclusion (para 58) that there was no demise of the ship and therefore no transfer of the vessel, ruled that the consideration received for the time charter did not amount to a deemed sale attracting levy under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Court concluded that the contract was not for hire of the vessel but for hiring the services to be provided to the owner, as a carrier to carry the goods which are put on board of the ship by the time-charterer. 34. Another contention by Revenue in the written submission is that the BSNL judgement does not specifically require deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (hire charges) remitted by the assessee to the owner of these tankers, notwithstanding that such remittances were subsequent to 16.05.2008. This is so, according to the assessee, since the taxable event is the supply of tangible goods. (C) From the statutory provision (extracted in para 9 supra), the following ingredients must be satisfied for a transaction to constitute the taxable service: (i) There should be a supply of tangible goods (including machinery, equipment and appliances) by the supplier to the user, for use; (ii) The supply of the tangible goods must be on or after 16.05.2008 (the date of introduction of the taxable service); and (iii) The right to possession and effective control over the tangible goods are not transferred in favour of the user by the supplier of the goods. (D) From the ingredients of the architecture of the taxable service (noticed above), it is clear that the taxable event is the supply of the tangible goods for use and not the use of the tangible goods supplied. Therefore, the date on which the tangible goods (tankers) are supplied for use by the owner to the assessee, is the date on which the taxable event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the situs of the taxable event of such tax (Sales Tax or VAT, as the case may be) would be the transfer, which legally transfers the rights to use goods. (H) In Art Leading Limited vs. CCE, Cochin, the issue was the rate of service tax applicable to the taxable "banking and other financial services", pertaining to hire purchase contracts. The contracts in issue were entered into prior to 14.05.2003. The rate of service tax was enhanced from 5% to 8% w.e.f. 14.05.2003. The Tribunal held that the taxable event having occurred prior to 14.05.2003, the service tax leviable was at 5% notwithstanding that installments (for the taxable event that occurred prior to 14.05.2003), for the service provided were remitted by the service recipient after 14.05.2003. (I) The position as to taxability and when service tax is leviable, (though in the context of "Banking and other Financial" services and Hire purchase agreements) was clarified by the Board vide the letter dated 09.07.2001. At para 2.1.4. the Board clarifies that where the hire-purchase agreement is executed prior to the date of introduction of the levy, no service tax is leviable on such service provided that the goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be said to be located in India during the period of their use by the recipient of the service; the transaction cannot be treated as a taxable service provided from outside India and received in India. The assessee contended that the tangible goods in issue are oil tankers used for transportation of LNG under cryogenic conditions, from Qatar to the assessee's regasification terminal at Dahej, Gujarat. (ii) During a substantial portion of the charter period, whether long term or short term, the tankers are in transit, on the high seas and come to the shore only for loading of LNG (outside India) and unloading LNG (in India). All other operations of the tankers is outside India, either in the high seas beyond the territorial limits of India or in another country. As the tankers (tangible goods) supplied for use of the assessee cannot be said to located in India during the period of use of such tangible goods, the transactions fall outside the purview of the proviso. (iii) The assessee also contended that the 2006 Rules classified the taxable services considered therein into three categories and specified distinct criteria for each of the categories, subject to exception ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 3(i); and the first proviso thereto enjoins that where such taxable services are partly performed in India, it shall be treated as performed in India. Rule 3(iii) enumerates taxable services excluding those specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereunder. (viii) The proviso to Rule 3(iii) is a specific and distinct provision in relation to STGU, a taxable service enumerated and defined in Section 65(105)(zzzzj), In the context of the elegant and distinct design of the several distinct provisions in Rule 3, and exclusive treatment of various taxable services therein, it is impermissible to read the stipulation of one clause of this rule into another. The proviso to Rule 3(iii) is therefore, on a true and fair construction of the provisions of Rule 3, a stand-alone provision specifically and exclusively applicable to the taxable STGU. Accordingly, tangible goods supplied for use must be located in India during the period of use of such goods by the recipient, for the charge of service tax to apply under the reverse charge mechanism enjoined by Section 66A (ix) "Located in India during the period of use of such tangible goods" is the governing criterion for applicabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a issued, The assessee challenges imposition of penalties, contending that penalties are liable to be chewed by invocation of the discretion Section 80 of the Act. (ii) It is contended that on 26.2.09, a letter was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax seeking certain documents with regard to the charter agreements. The documents were furnished by the assessee, vide its letter dated 28.2.09. On 4.3.09, further documents were sought. These were submitted on 12.4.09. On 13.4.09, the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion Division) sought further information/documents. These were furnished on 27.5.09. On 22.6.09, personal appearance of the authorised representative of the appellant was called, for recording a statement on 29.6.09. The statement was recorded on 26.6.09 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On 28.8.09, the assessee received a detailed legal advice from a Senior Advocate clearly advising that no service tax is leviable on the hiring charges paid by the assessee for hiring the tankers. On 9.9.09, the assessee addressed the Department, informing about the legal advice; asserting that there is no liability to service tax and requested dropping o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. 40. We answer this contention accordingly, in favour of the assessee. 41. Whether corrigenda dated 14.4.12, 29.5.12, 31.5.12 and 22.6.12 are valid: (i) It is contended by the assessee that the corrigenda were issued altering the quantum of penalty or levying interest, thus substantively amending of the adjudication order; and that the corrigenda were issued without notice or opportunity to the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Banswara Syntex Ltd. vs. CESTAT 2007 (216) ELT 12 (Raj.) and of this Tribunal in Iquira XNC vs. C.C., Chennai 2004 (170) ELT 583 (Tri-Bang) for the proposition that a corrigendum issued without hearing the assessee violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained, Since the corrigenda were issued without notice or opportunity to the petitioner we hold that these are unsustainable. In any event since we have concluded that the transactions in issue do not fall within the taxable service, the corrigenda issued amending the adjudication order, with regard to interest or penalties components would also be invalid. 42. On the analyses above, we hold: (i) Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
