TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Proviso to Section 73 of the Act - Held that:- As on 16.5.2008, the date with effect from which STGU was introduced as a taxable service, transportation of passengers by air on domestic routes was not a taxable service. So the petitioner cannot therefore gainfully contend that it entertained a bona fide doubt whether services provided by it fall within STGU. Therefore, invokation of extended period of limitation sustains - stay denied - Stay Application No.61355 of 2013, Misc. Application No.52297 of2015 in Service Tax Appeal No.60344 of 2013 - Stay/Misc. Order No.50083 - 50084/2016 - Dated:- 9-2-2016 - MR. JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Rohini Agarwal, C.A. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 65(105)(zzzo) of the Finance Act, 1994, as services provided by an Aircraft Operator, in relation to scheduled or non-scheduled air transport, of any passenger, for (international or) domestic journey. 5. Proceedings were initiated by issuance of two show cause notices dated 21.3.2011 and 24.4.2012 culminating in the impugned adjudication order. 6. Counsel for the appellant contends that services provided by the appellant are in substance and effect, services towards transport of passengers on domestic routes through its helicopters, an activity failing more appropriately within the ambit of Section 65(105)(zzzo) rather than within the ambit of supply of tangible goods for use (STGU), defined and enumerated in Section 65(105) (z ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, therefore, the activity of the appellant amounts to transportation of persons within India and not STGU. Prima facie, the conclusion in Mesco Airlines Ltd. interim order cannot be considered as a ratio. It is conclusion on the facts of that case. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, since there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the passengers who travel on appellants helicopters and the contracts were invariably between the appellant and the charter parties who hired appellant s helicopters for the purpose of transporting passengers, the services clearly fall within the ambit of STGU. 9. For the aforesaid reasons we find no prima facie case in favour of the appellant. 10. Ld. Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
