9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an arrangement that the appellant shall reimburse 90 % of the revenue earned by a particular private owned bus towards their running and maintenance expenses and 10 % shall be shared towards administration expenses of the Appellant. The 10 % amount retained by the appellant is shown as revenue income of the appellant under the accounting head 'Revenue from Private Owned Buses'. 2.1. The Revenue is of the view that the appellant has provided various category taxable services such as "Business Support Service", Renting of Immovable Property Service' and Sale of space and Time for Advertisement Service' and has not discharged its Service Tax liabilities. 2.2. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2012 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs.6,81,90,106/-, including Cess, for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.12.2012. The Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 06/Commr/ST/GHY/13-14 dated 24.10.2013, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.6,75,66,180/- along with interest and penalty. He dropped the demand of service tax of Rs.6,23,928/-for the period 01.06.2007 to 31/03/2012 dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified by the State Govt. in the public interest. The appellant, being a statutory Corporation, has no authority to permit other persons to run their vehicles on their own, on payment of some amount to the Corporation. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the activity undertaken by them cannot be considered as 'Business Support Services' promoting the business of the private transport operators. . The ld. adjudicating authority has held in the impugned order dated 24.10.2013 that the appellant has provided infrastructural support service to the private bus owners for smooth operation of the private buses and thereby the appellant is providing business support to the private bus owners. The appellant corporation is neither a business organization nor providing any business support services to any private bus owners but carries on its activities in the interest of general public. Thus, the appellant contended that the demand of service tax under the category of as 'Business Support Services' in the impugned order is not sustainable. 3.2. Regarding the demand of service tax of Rs.48,15,642/-under the category of 'Renting of Immovable Property service', the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, we hold that the department at this stage cannot claim wilful suppression of fact intending evade payment of service tax on the part of the appellant and raise the demand again by invoking extended period, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of C.Ex, A.P.[2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.)]. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned Order is not sustainable on the grounds of limitation. 7. Regarding merits of the issue, we observe that the demand has been confirmed under three different categories of services namely, Business Support Service, Renting on immovable properties and providing time & space for advertisement service. 7.1. Regarding the demand of service tax of Rs.6,24,01,668/- under the category of 'Business Support Service', we observe that the adjudicating authority has held that the appellant has provided infrastructural support service to the private bus owners for smooth operation of the private buses and thereby the appellant has provided business support to the private bus owners. In this regard, it is required to examine the definition of 'Business Support Srervice'. 7.2. Sec. 65(104c) of the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant has rented out immovable property for a consideration. In their submissions, the appellant contended that they are not a commercial concern. They are a non-profit making statutory body. They have provided the spaces to stall owners at various places for the benefit of the passengers to arrange their necessity during the journey. Whatever, amount collected by them cannot be considered as 'rent' and used the same has been used towards providing amenities for the passengers in the public interest. Hence, the amount received towards rentals or lease/license fees cannot be considered as 'consideration' received for taxable services. We do not agree with the argument of the appellant. We observe that the stalls and shops have been rented out for commercial purposes. We observe that there ia an instance where the premises have been leased out to Gold Cinema, (M/s. Agile Associates), for cinema show. Thus, we hold that the appellant has rented out the properties for commercial purposes and received consideration towards such services. Thus, we observe that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Renting of Immovable property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
