9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 435 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax in terms of Rule 2 (1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Recipient of service - Held that - service tax cannot demanded from the service recipient under provisions of rule 2 (1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, prior to 18.04.2006. This judgment was uphold by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in (2009 (12) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Board has also accepted - Following decision of National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI 2008 (12) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Change of cause title in appeals 2. Service tax on services received from foreign collaborator prior to 18.04.2006 Analysis: Issue 1: Change of cause title in appeals The appeals were related to the same issue but arose from different impugned orders. In one of the appeals, there was a request for a change of cause title from one entity to another, supported by a letter from the Registrar of Corporate Affairs. The Revenue also requested a change in the respondent's name to align with the current jurisdiction. After hearing both sides, the application for the change of cause title was allowed, with the appellant's name recorded as the new entity and the respondent's name as the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. Issue 2: Service tax on services received from foreign collaborator prior to 18.04.2006 The core issue in both appeals revolved around service tax demanded on services received from a foreign collaborator before 18.04.2006, as per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant argued that a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a specific case had established that service tax could not be demanded from the service recipient under the mentioned rule prior to the specified date. This judgment had been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in a particular case, and was also accepted by the Board. In light of this legal precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a detailed understanding of the case's outcome.
|
