9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 563 - AT - Service TaxGTA service for the period 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998 - Held that - for the period involved during 16/07/1997 to 02/06/1998, the show-cause notice should have been issued during the said period and the notice issued after the retrospective amendment is not sustainable in law. - Demand set aside.
Issues:
Service tax demand under GTA service for the period 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998; Validity of show-cause notice issued after retrospective amendment; Applicability of Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, regarding a service tax demand under GTA service for a specific period. The appellant, a recipient of GTA service, was issued a notice in 2002 to discharge the service tax liability under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, which had retrospective effect. The appellant argued that the show-cause notice issued after the amendment was not sustainable in law, as only actions taken during the relevant period could be validated by the retrospective amendment. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of BPL Ltd., which held that show-cause notices should have been issued during the relevant period and not after the retrospective amendment to be legally sustainable. This decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka. The Tribunal, in line with the precedent set by the BPL Ltd. case, concluded that the demands in the present case were not sustainable due to the show-cause notice being issued after the retrospective amendment came into force. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of issuing show-cause notices within the relevant period to ensure legal sustainability and compliance with the retrospective amendments to the law. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural adherence and timely actions in matters concerning service tax demands and retrospective legislative changes.
|
