TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the merit that the whole process of issue of smart card for applicant is statutory function which only the Government Road Transport Authority can do - there is no scope for application of clause (vi) of Section 65 (19) in the scheme of things, as discussed above, there is no provision of service on behalf of the client in the present case. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. Smart Chip Limited [2015 (7) TMI 886 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] relying on the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Indore Vs. Ankit Consultancy Limited [2006 (10) TMI 61 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] held that the activities of the appellant with reference to service centres in different offices of the transport department cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeals No.50008-50010 of 2014 with Misc. Applications No. 50201 and 50258-50259 of 2017 - ST/A/55831-55833/2017 - Dated:- 14-8-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant. S/Shri Aseem Mehrotra and M.K. Gandhi, Advocates for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are engaged in any sovereign/statutory activities. The consideration received by the respondent is from M/s Rosmerta as service charges and it cannot be held as a statutory levy. The Revenue contended that the Original Authority wrongly applied the clarification dated 18/12/2006 of the Board. It is further contended that the work of preparing smart card/scanning documents and other miscellaneous work to help another contractor in his business cannot be considered as a sovereign or statutory function. The Revenue also relied on certain decided cases to contest the finding of the Original Authority. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order examined the scope of work undertaken by the respondent and after detailed analysis of the legal provisions came to the correct conclusion. He also submitted a list of case laws in his defence which supported the findings of the Original Authority. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The dispute in the present appeals is only with reference to the work undertaken by the respondent in connection with implementation of SOC VRC project. The nature of work and the role of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... green signal is shown by system for the case, which indicates to proceed for personalization of cards of the said case. Then the Blank Smart Optical Card (pre-printed with GOM logo and Map) is placed on Smart Card printer and M/s Virgo prints the received vehicle registration data through flat file on the black Smart Optical Card which then becomes SOC VRC and hand over said SOC VRC to the designated official of RTO. Then the designated official of RTO performs the security operation through Key Management System (KMS) which locks the data on the card. KMS software provided by NIC is installed in a Personal computer connected with three numbers of USB based Smart Card Readers; that then RTO official delivers SOC-VRC to the applicants as per their procedure and M/s Virgo are getting ₹ 60/- per SOC VRC. Thus, issue of the Noticee is squarely covered under the above judgment. I have also gone through the Board clarification No.89/7/2006-ST dated 18/12/2006, wherein the activities to be performed by the sovereign/public authorities under the provision of any law are clarified as statutory duties and do not constitute taxable service. Thus, the fee or amount collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent and the respondent are providing services to M/s Shonkh and GOM on behalf of their client namely M/s Rosmerta. We find that the whole assertion of revenue is contrived without any appreciation of the facts involved in the case. Admittedly, the smart card for vehicle registration is issued by Government of Maharashtra. The applicant for such smart card cannot be considered as a client to be covered under BAS tax entry. The registration of vehicle is a statutory obligation and non-compliance will attract penal consequences. GOM is implementing such statutory provision. The fee for issuing such card is fixed in terms of motor vehicle regulations and as noted by the Original Authority on payment of such fee only the process of preparation of smart card can be initiated. The fact that the Government has outsourced some part of the work and paid certain consideration for such outsourced work does not take away the merit that the whole process of issue of smart card for applicant is statutory function which only the Government Road Transport Authority can do. We find no scope for application of clause (vi) of Section 65 (19) in the scheme of things, as discussed above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
