Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 858

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y is that running the buses in the city for convenience of the citizens and thus it cannot be called as a rent-a-cab service operation. The definition of cab under section 65 (20) of Finance Act, 1994 of maxicab under section 65 (70) of Finance Act read with Section 2 (22) of Motor Vehicle Act and of rent-a cab scheme operator defined under section 65 (91) along with the meaning of taxable service in relation to renting of cabs given under section 65 (105)(a) of the Finance Act, 1944 have been examined by the Tribunal in BMTC case. The Tribunal has held that definition itself excludes State Transport Undertakings (Bangalore s BMTC in said case) from the category of service providers. Though in the present case the appellant is alleged to be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xiliary Service / Renting/ Sale of space or time for advertisement services / Renting of immovable property services / Business Support Service etc. The department while audit of the appellants record observed that during the period from July 2012 to March, 2015, the appellants were receiving buses and taxies on hire from various parties and thereby were availing the rent-a-cab service. They were also receiving services provided by individual advocates or firm of advocates. For the period from 1.7.2012 the appellant is observed to be liable under reverse charge mechanism in respect of both the said services on 100% /40%, as the case may be, by the billed value in terms of Notification No. 30/12-ST dated 20.6.2012. Department alleged that se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndigarh I [2023 (7) TMI 363 CESTATChandigarh] has been relied upon. 5. With respect to the demand pertaining to normal period, learned counsel while impressing upon the merits of the case has mentioned that the appellant has been established by Government of Rajasthan on 1.10.1964 under the Road Transport Act 1950. It has 5000 buses in its fleet and 56 depots across the State and 3 depots outside the State. Hence, the appellant is a State Transport Undertaking. As per the definition notified under clause 42 (zg) of Section 2 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, appellant is a State Transport Undertaking. As per Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.6.2012, there arises no tax liability on such undertaking. Decision of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation (BMTC) [2015 (38) STR 976 (Tri-Bangalore)] it has been held at the business undertaken by BMTC is to provide bus facility /transport facility to the citizens of Bangalore city and main activity is that running the buses in the city for convenience of the citizens and thus it cannot be called as a rent-a-cab service operation. The definition of cab under section 65 (20) of Finance Act, 1994 of maxicab under section 65 (70) of Finance Act read with Section 2 (22) of Motor Vehicle Act and of rent-a cab scheme operator defined under section 65 (91) along with the meaning of taxable service in relation to renting of cabs given under section 65 (105)(a) of the Finance Act, 1944 have been examined by the Tribunal in BMTC case. The Tribunal h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ged non-payment of service tax by appellant was revealed from the audit of its records. But this aspect is no more res integra, by virtue of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajpur reported as [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]. 10. We further observe that there is a catena of judicial pronouncement to hold that suppression of facts should not merely the gross omission to pay the duty but it is an act clubbed with an intent not to pay the duty . Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpem Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 1995 (78) ELT 401 has held that without the intent to evade, the duty being established the extended period of limitation c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates