TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 2011. Therefore, this exemption is fully applicable to the appellant for the services rendered during the relevant period - demand set aside. GTA Services - extended period of limitation - Held that:- It is not in dispute that appellant had rendered these services and had subsequently discontinued this service because the RTO found it incorrect to render this service. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is not registered for the GTA services. It is also not in dispute that they had not disclosed that they are providing these services to the department and this came to light only during the investigation - there is no reason to hold that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as the appellant had wilfully suppress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both these services. After following the due process, the lower authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under section 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected the appeal. The present appeal is against this order of the first appellate authority. 3. When this matter was called out, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Central Government has issued Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 exempting tour operators having a contract carriage permit who provided tour operator services as per section 65 (105) (n). He further submits that in the Finance Act, 2011, retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving abatement of 75% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and an amount of ₹ 6,742/- was calculated as the liability. The first appellate authority observed with regard to the demand issued for goods transport agency service, I find that Shri Naveen Kumar, himself admitted that they had transported goods for the period for the months of August, 2006, September, 2006, October, 2006 and July, 2007 and the same was withdrawn due to objections raised by the RTO. The appellant had not obtained service tax registration nor disclosed the taxable value of this service. 7. Learned counsel contested the service tax liability under GTA services on the ground of jurisdiction. It was his contention that they have their office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GTA services to the Hyderabad Commissionerate. Therefore, there is no force in the argument that the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate has no jurisdiction and the show cause notice should have been issued by the Hyderabad Commissionerate. 9. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The issues which fall for consideration are as follows. (a) Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on i. Tour Operator Services ii. Goods Transport Agency Services (b) Whether the appellant is liable to pay duty for the extended period along with interest (c) Whether the appellant is liable to penalties imposed under section 77 78. 10. As far as the Tour Operator Services are concerned, it is not in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
