Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner, Central Excise Customs & Service Tax, Bilaspur Versus M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

Extended period of limitation - assessee stopped payment of service tax in the pretext of seeking clarification from the Commissioner - Held that:- The order of the Commissioner is well reasoned and discussed. It has analyzed the facts threadbare arriving at the conclusion that the mere seeking of a clarification from the Board cannot be sufficient justification to withhold payment of service tax. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Commissioner further arrived .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dent that the transport challans fulfilled all the requirements of the consignment note and that there may have been some additional information in it for the sake of convenience would not take the basic character of a consignment note fulfilled.

The Tribunal, without any discussion of these findings arrived at by the Commissioner, by a cryptic conclusion has held that in absence of any consignment note actually having been issued, no liability of service tax arises. The question in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent. We are satisfied that the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') dated 13.8.2014 in Service Tax Appeal No. 227 of 2008 is not sustainable in its present form and the matter has to be remanded to it for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 2. A show cause notice was issued on 16.11.2006 to the Respondent with regard to payment of service tax regarding Goods Tra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st and penalty. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the order of the Commissioner is very detailed. It discussed threadbare contentions and counter-contentions to arrive at the conclusion that the clarification sought by the Respondent from the Board dated 12.11.2007 had also opined liability for payment of service tax. It was then paid for one year from the date of receipt of the show cause i.e. 9.12.2005 to 28.2.2013 through their 13 Area Offices. The Respondent had also advised .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ransport companies by not issuing consignment notes violated provisions of Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules. The Respondent had not followed the procedures laid down in the Acts and the Rules and failed to get itself registered with the department for payment of service tax which resulted in evading of service tax, thus guilty of suppression. The defence of having sought a clarification from the Board cannot be sufficient justification for avoidance of statutory liability and especially when the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of mind by the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, from the counter-affidavit supporting the order of the Tribunal only submits that if the consignment note was actually required before liability for service tax could arise and the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that in fact no consignment note had been issued, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. Since there was no consignment note issued, there was no taxable service. The appeal does not spell out any reasons how .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eeking of a clarification from the Board cannot be sufficient justification to withhold payment of service tax. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Commissioner further arrived at the finding that after the clarification by the Board, the Respondent has in fact paid the service tax, but partially only. The Commissioner further arrived at the finding that the plea for seeking clarification from the Board could not be a valid justification for the Respondent to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version