2011 (7) TMI 739 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - GTA services - Validity of show cause notice - Section 71A, the provision under which recipients of GTO service, like the present assessees, were to filed returns for purposes of assessment under Section 71, was not a part of Section 73 of the Act prior to 10.9.2004 - prior to 10.9.2004, the respondents are not liable to file return under Sec.70 or Sec.71A - Tribunal in the case of Pandurang SSK Ltd & ors vide order 2011 -TMI - 207348 - CESTAT, MUMBAI held that the show-cause notices/corrigenda to show-cause notices issued prior to 10.9.2004 are not in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
Validity of show-cause notices and corrigenda issued for service tax demands related to services availed from goods transport operators during a specific period.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal, with a common issue of service tax demands for services from goods transport operators during 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. Show-cause notices alleged failure to register for service tax, collect and pay appropriate tax, and file ST-3 returns. The Commissioner(Appeals) dropped the demands, leading to Revenue's appeals. The Revenue argued that amendments to the Finance Act made customers liable for service tax payment, with corrigenda issued for demands. They relied on legal precedents to support the demands, claiming the show-cause notices were within time limits.

In response, some respondents argued against the demands. Consultants and advocates highlighted legal judgments affirming that show-cause notices were not sustainable due to specific provisions of the Finance Act. They contested the validity of the corrigenda and the timing of the demands. The advocates emphasized that the amended provisions of the Act were not considered in the Revenue's arguments.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the issue to be the validity of show-cause notices and corrigenda issued for service tax demands. They noted that the amended provisions of the Finance Act were crucial in determining the validity of the demands. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that show-cause notices issued before the amendment to Sec.73 on 10.9.2004 were not valid. They upheld a previous decision by a coordinate bench, stating that demands based on pre-amendment notices were not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the demands were not legally valid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the timing and legal implications of the show-cause notices and corrigenda issued for service tax demands. The decision emphasized the importance of considering the amended provisions of the Finance Act in determining the validity of demands related to services from goods transport operators.