9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1154 - HC - Central Excise
Issues involved: Writ petition seeking mandamus on jurisdiction to demand interest on Service Tax for Goods Transport Operators Service for a specific period.
The judgment addresses the issue of liability for payment of service tax on Goods Transport Operator Services for a specific period. Initially, the liability was on Transport Service Providers, but later shifted to Transport Service Receivers by an amendment in the Finance Act, 2000. The petitioner, a Receiver of Transport Services, deposited the service tax amount as required. The Finance Act, 2000, validated certain actions under the Service Tax Rules, including revalidating the provisions for Service Tax on Goods Transport Operators for the mentioned period. The judgment discusses the insertion of a proviso in Section 68 of the Finance Act, 2000, which deems certain persons always liable to pay service tax for specific services. Section 71A was also inserted with retrospective effect, exempting certain persons from filing returns under specific conditions. The respondents were claiming service tax payment from Goods Transport Operators Services Receivers and demanding interest on delayed payments. The judgment refers to a Supreme Court decision regarding the liability to file returns and make service tax payments under specific sections of the Finance Act. It upholds the contention that once the liability to file a return is cast on the assessee under Section 71A, the petitioner is not liable for service tax payment. As the petitioner had already paid the service tax amount, no interest payment was deemed necessary. The respondents relied on Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, which validates past actions taken under the Service Tax Rules. The judgment rejects this argument, citing previous Supreme Court decisions that support the petitioner's position regarding liability for service tax payment and interest. Based on the above analysis, the judgment concludes that there was no liability for the petitioner to file returns under Section 70 for the mentioned period, as the service tax amount had already been deposited. Therefore, the order demanding interest on the service tax amount was quashed and set aside. In the final decision, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
|
