9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of statute regarding application of notification on repair and maintenance services, retrospective levy of tax, recognition of software as goods, limitation period for demand, pre-deposit requirement for appeal.
In the present case, the Counsel for the Appellant argued that the demand is time-barred based on the show cause notice issued on a specific date. The dispute pertains to a period from 9-7-2004 to 31-3-2006. The Counsel contended that a clarification issued by the Board regarding maintenance and repair of software should not result in a retrospective levy of tax, as it was not the legislative intent. The Counsel emphasized that no notification can impose a retrospective levy without a clear legislative mandate. The demand amounting to Rs. 31,56,723/- was deemed unsustainable on this ground. Regarding the remaining demand of Rs. 19 lakhs, the Appellant had already deposited around Rs. 7 lakhs. The Counsel argued that this balance should not be realized during the appeal process, citing the order of adjudication. It was also highlighted that a previous notification had exempted the Appellant from tax liability concerning repair and maintenance of hardware, further supporting the Appellant's position. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that since software is recognized as goods and maintenance of goods is considered a taxable service as per the Notification, the service provided should be subject to taxation. The Representative emphasized the need for pre-deposit of the substantial tax amount in question to proceed with the appeal. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal primarily sought clarification on the application of the notification regarding repair and maintenance services. The issue of whether the tax levy was retrospective or prospective needed thorough examination, along with other related matters. The Tribunal noted the recognition of software as goods under the law and deemed it necessary to conduct a detailed analysis on interpretation, confusion, and limitation aspects. As an interim measure, the Tribunal ruled that there should be no recovery of the demand until the appeal is resolved.
|
