TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition in a contract of service. Admittedly, appellant is not entitled to retain any amount by way of commission, irrespective of the total amount of royalty collected. Admittedly, the appellant incurred loss in some financial year and have got surplus in some of the financial years. Further, it is admitted fact on record that there is no defined consideration, as required under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act. The appellant have provided no service to the Department of Mines Geology, Government of Rajasthan. The appellant have entered into business on principal to principal basis - impugned order not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50682 of 2019, 50596 of 2019 - Final Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 SCN dated 07.04.2016 27.09.2013 Period April, 2012 to March, 2016 2008-09 2009-10 Service Tax Amount Rs. 2,27,973/- 22,05,499/- Penalty Rs. 2,72,973/- 22,05,499/- 2. The show cause notice dated 27.09.2013 (30.9.2013) and 07.04.2016 was adjudicated vide separate order-in-original. The demands was confirmed alongwith penalty under Sections 76, 77, 78, etc. on show cause notice dated 27.09.2013. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service tax under Section 70, as regards furnishing of return under the Finance Act, and proceeded to hold that it is clear that service tax shall be assessed by the provider of service. Further observing to the contrary that the loss or profit shall also be assessed on yearly basis and thus held that collection for two years of royalty, cannot be clubbed and loss suffered or profit gained in one year cannot be adjusted in another year . 3. In the order-in-appeal dated 27.06.2018, learned Commissioner (Appeals) took notice of the ruling of the Rajasthan High Court in Udaipur Chambers of Commerce and Industry vs. Union of India -2018 (8) GSTL 170 (Raj.) wherein, in the writ petition before the High Court the issue was applicabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, it is clear that appellant have provided services by way of collecting royalty and the amount collected and retained by them is an independent entity and thus they had been compensated, and accordingly service tax on the amount collected over and above the bid amount can be termed as commission or consideration for the service provided by them, and accordingly tax is liable to be paid under the category of BAS . 5. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel urges that in a contract of service, consideration has to be defined, it cannot be vague or uncertain as in the facts of the present case. Admittedly, there is absence of any defined consideration, as appellant is not entitled to retain any amount by way of fixed commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
