9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 982 - HC - Service TaxDemand - GTA services - The respondent having its registered office at Anantapur Road Bellary have availed the service of Goods Transport Operator during the period from 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998 without getting themselves registered with the Central Excise Department - As per amended Rules a new Rule 7A has been inserted vide Notification No. 4/2003 dated 14-5-2003 which provides that the service receiver in case of service received by GTOs for the aforesaid period shall be required to file return in form ST-3B along with copy of TR 6 challan within a period of six months from the date of 13-5-2003 - The material on record would clearly show that there is no doubt about the date on which the amendment was made to the provisions of the Act retrospectively with effect from 11-5-2000 - Supreme Court in CCE Meerut v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. (2005 -TMI - 47389 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Held that when the assessee is covered u/s 71-A of the Act any show cause notice can be issued u/s 73 of the Act - Appeal is dismissed
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 71-A of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Validity of show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act. 3. Liability of Goods Transport Operators to pay Service tax. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 71-A of the Finance Act, 1994 The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, at Bangalore. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the show cause notice issued after the retrospective amendment of the Finance Act from 11-5-2000 could not be issued to persons assessed under Section 71-A, as they are not covered by Section 73. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., emphasizing that Section 71-A exempts certain persons from the provisions of Section 73. Issue 2: Validity of show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Act The substantial questions of law framed in the appeal memo included whether the Appellate Authority was correct in stating that the notice issued to assessees under Section 73 did not make them liable to pay tax. The material facts revealed that the respondent had availed the services of Goods Transport Operators without getting registered with the Central Excise Department, without paying Service tax, and without following statutory procedures. The show cause notice was issued for non-payment of Service tax, and the original authority confirmed the order to demand tax and penalty. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal and subsequently the High Court. Issue 3: Liability of Goods Transport Operators to pay Service tax The High Court considered the arguments presented by both counsels. The counsel for the appellant contended that since no return was filed under Section 71-A, the appellate authorities erred in setting aside the show cause notice. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the Tribunal's order, citing judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Court. The High Court, after examining the material on record, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that show cause notices invoking Section 73 were not maintainable for assessees covered under Section 71-A. The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's decision in L.H. Sugar Factory's case and held in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the interpretation of Section 71-A and the inapplicability of Section 73 to certain assessees. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory compliance and the implications of retrospective amendments to the Finance Act, 1994.
|
