9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted a demand of Rs. 3,05,83,495/- comprising demand of Rs. 2,84,28,406/- on the activity of sale of water; Rs. 21,30,184/- on renting of immovable property; and Rs. 24,905/- on "Goods Transport Agency" service. 3. Under an agreement dated 1-9-2006 between the petitioner and M/s. Kakinada Seaports Ltd. (KSPL), the later being authorized to manage and administer the Kakinada minor port, the petitioner is inter alia required to supply fresh water to vessels calling on the Kakinada Deep Water Port under the terms and conditions and covenants including reciprocal obligations, enumerated in the agreement. In the process of delivery of the obligations arising from the said agreement, the petitioner procured water and supplied the same to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort services in the port, in any manner, to be a "taxable service" and a proviso thereto stipulated that the provisions of Section 65A would not apply to any service when the same is rendered wholly within the port. As a consequence of this amendment, w.e.f. 1-7-2010, all taxable services provided within the port are required to be classified as "port service". 4. The supply of water by the petitioner resulting in receipt of consideration therefor was admittedly prior to 1-7-2010. It was therefore incumbent that Revenue should have clearly identified the appropriate taxable service into which supply of water falls. This exercise is absent either in the show cause notice or in the impugned adjudication order. We are therefore prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e property under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act are seen from the nature of the activities summarized in para 19 of the show cause notice. The relevant portion of the impugned adjudication order is equally vague. We are therefore prima facie satisfied that no relevant criteria of renting of immovable property are discernible in the transaction pursuant to which Rs. 1,72,34,500/- was received as consideration by the petitioner from M/s. Asian Tanking Pvt. Ltd. 6. Demand of Rs. 24,905/- is confirmed as the tax liability arising from the receipt of goods transportation agency service by the petitioner. That the petitioner is liable to remit Service Tax as the recipient of goods transport agency service is not contested. The singular de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
