9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 141 - AT - Service TaxSection 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 - liability for period prior to 18.04.06 - Held that - The order of the Commissioner revising the order of the original authority to demand service tax for the period prior to 17.04.2006 on the recipient of the services in India in the facts and circumstances are not justified in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India (2008 - TMI - 32013 - High Court Of Bombay) as conveyed by the Board to the field formations vide Circular dated 26.09.2011 - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Revision of demand for service tax prior to 18.04.2006. 2. Interpretation of liability for service tax on services from foreign-based providers. 3. Applicability of High Court judgment and Board circular on service tax liability. Analysis: Issue 1: The original authority dropped the proposal for demand of service tax for the period before 18.04.2006. However, the Commissioner revised this decision under Section 84 of the Finance Act, confirming a demand for service tax along with penalties. The appellant challenged this revision. Issue 2: The appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in disregarding the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and a subsequent circular by the Board. They contended that service tax liability on services provided by non-resident persons outside India to recipients in India arises only from 18.04.2006 onwards. Issue 3: The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records. It noted the judgment of the High Court and the Board's circular clarifying the service tax liability issue. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order revising the original authority's decision was not justified in light of the High Court judgment and the Board's circular. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the original authority's decision. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law, and the stay petition was disposed of. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law regarding the liability for service tax on services provided by foreign-based providers before and after 18.04.2006, as clarified by the High Court judgment and the Board's circular.
|
