TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was wholly impermissible - Following decision of Unitech Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and Indian National Shipowners Association [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 1620 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2011 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. Shri Darshan M. Parikh, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER Substantial question of law proposed by the Revenue in the present appeal is as follows :- Whether the Hon ble CESTAT is right in holding that the Service Tax was leviable only with effect from 18-4-2006 (as held in the judgment in the case of M/s. Indian National Shipowners Association reported in [2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.)] when said judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.). After the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the same was examined by the Committee of Commissioners as constituted under Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act. The Appeal was preferred before the CESTAT by Revenue. Service provider also challenged the order contending that the tax should be levied from 18-4-2006 only. 7. The Revenue has preferred this appeal by fervently challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal by proposing aforementioned question of law. 8. The issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Tax Appeal No. 1300 of 2010 [2011 (23) S.T.R. 15 (Guj.)] as well as Tax Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country and elsewhere, the country, where the establishment of the provider of service directly concerned with the provision of service is located, shall be treated as the country from which the service is provided or to be provided. (2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in India and through another permanent establishment in a country other than India, such permanent establishments shall be treated as separate persons for the purposes of this section. By virtue of the said provision, a major shift in certain situation has been introduced with respect to the question of collection of Service Tax. We are however concerned with the period prior to 18-4-2006 when said Section 66A was not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where any service provided or to be provided by a person, who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided, or has his permanent address or usual place or residence, in a country other than India and such service is received or to be received by a person who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or, as the case may be, usual place of residence, in India, such service shall be deemed to be taxable service for the purposes of this clause. However, in absence of any charging Section the Court was of the opinion that merely by virtue of provisions contained in Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) in the Service Tax Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Service Tax on the recipients of the taxable service. Now, because of the enactment of Section 66A, a person who is resident in India or business in India becomes liable to be levied Service Tax when he receives service outside India from a person who is non-resident or is from outside India. Before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there was no authority vested by law in the Respondents to levy Service Tax on a person who is resident in India, but who receives services outside India. In that case till Section 66A was enacted a person liable was the one who rendered the services. In other words, it is only after enactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
