9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN in short) and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN in short). During the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 without obtaining the service tax registration and without payment of service tax. On the basis of information received that DHBVN received various services from the appellant of whose details were provided by the appellants. The appellant submitted copy of the balance sheet and form 26AS. On scrutiny of the documents, it was alleged that the appellants were engaged in providing erection, commissioning, installation services/work contract services upto 30/06/2012 and thereafter having the contracts for supply and erection of works. On the basis of documents submitted, two show-cause notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Canara Bank - 2012 (28) STR 369 (Tri-Ahmed) and in the case of State Bank of Patiala - 2016 (45) STR 333 (Tri-LB), the appellant being an agent of distribution licensee is entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 and is not liable to pay service tax, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 whereas the benefit of Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20/07/2010 has already been granted to the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in this case the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the appellant is not a distribution licensee. Admittedly, the appellant is providing the services of distribution of electricity on behalf of DHBVN & UNBVN, who are the distribution licensees. Therefore, it is to be seen that whether the appellant got the right for transmission of electricity from their principals. Admittedly, the appellant has provided these services on behalf of the distribution licensee, who are having license to distribute the electricity. Therefore, it is to be seen that whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification or not. In the case of Canara Bank (supra) this Tribunal got an occasion to examine the issue whether a person, who is providing services on behalf of the principal is entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act." 13. The above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court make it clear that exemption to the principal would be available to the agent also. For this purpose, since the agent is eligible for the exemption which is available to the principal in terms of the relationship with the principal of the agent and not because of exemption granted specifically to the agent or principal, we have to hold that the appellant is eligible for exemption. If RBI were to undertake the activity there would have been no question of levy of service tax. It was also brought to our notice that RBI is not paying service tax. Same functions being carried out by RBI are exempted. Therefore, we hold that the benefit of exemption available to RBI would be availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
