2012 (5) TMI 350 - AT - Service Tax

Business of booking on behalf of goods transport agency - Commission income - Business auxiliary service (BAS) - held that - notification No. 1/2009-ST dated 5.1.09 vide which services falling under Section 65 (105) (zzb) provided by an assessee to GTA were exempted. - Circular No. 334/13/2009 TRU dated 6.7.2009 vide which by appreciating the difficulty of GTA service provider, Government extended the promise to drop all past demands of litigations, by giving retrospective effect to the notification in question. - matter remanded back for de novo consideration.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Business Auxiliary services under Section 65 (105) (zzb) to goods transport agency services.
2. Impact of subsequent notification No. 1/2009-ST dated 5.1.09 on the services provided by an assessee to goods transport agency (GTA).
3. Consideration of Circular No. 334/13/2009 TRU dated 6.7.2009 in determining past demands of litigations.
4. Request for remand of the matters for the lower authorities to consider the above-mentioned notification and circular.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in the business of a goods transport agency by providing booking services and earning commission, faced proceedings by the Revenue for treating these services as falling under Business Auxiliary services. The impugned orders for three appeals were passed, prompting the appellant's advocate to highlight subsequent notification No. 1/2009-ST dated 5.1.09. This notification exempted services falling under Section 65 (105) (zzb) provided by an assessee to GTA. Additionally, the advocate pointed out Circular No. 334/13/2009 TRU dated 6.7.2009, where the Government extended the promise to drop all past demands of litigations, with retrospective effect to the notification. However, it was acknowledged that these documents were not brought to the attention of the lower authorities, leading to a lack of findings on the matter.

2. The learned advocate's acknowledgment of the oversight regarding the notification and circular led to a request for remand of the matters for the consideration of these crucial pieces of information. The Appellate Tribunal, in light of the above, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The directive was to take into account notification No. 1/2009-ST along with Circular No. 334/13/2009-TRU dated 6.7.2009, and any further developments on the subject. Consequently, the stay petitions and appeal were disposed of in the manner outlined above.

3. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Archana Wadhwa, emphasized the importance of considering all relevant notifications and circulars in tax proceedings. The decision to remand the matter for a fresh adjudication underscored the significance of ensuring that all pertinent information is taken into account during the legal process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for thorough examination and application of relevant laws and notifications to reach a just and informed decision in tax matters.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal.