9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 207 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - C&F Agent and GTA service - Held that - Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prakash Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (2013 (1) TMI 740 - CESTAT CHENNAI) has already granted stay following the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2012 (12) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT), prima facie, the service tax demand on C&F agency is waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - During the period in dispute the appellants were unregistered partnership firm and the unregistered partnership firms were brought into service tax net with effect from 1.7.2012. Prima facie, the appellants have made out a case for waiver of predeposit. Accordingly, waiver of predeposit is granted on GTA services availed and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of entire dues for C&F Agent and recipient of GTA service. Analysis: The appellant, a C&F Agent, filed a miscellaneous application seeking waiver of predeposit of service tax dues amounting to &8377; 1,24,975 under C&F Agent services and &8377; 2,50,828 as recipient of GTA service. The appellant argued that the service tax demanded under C&F Agent services was a reimbursable expense under Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision and a High Court ruling, the appellant contended that the demand should be stayed. In the case of recipient of GTA service, the appellant, an unregistered partnership firm during the relevant period, claimed exemption from service tax liability based on the definition in Section 2(1)(d)(v). The appellant highlighted that the amendment effective from 1.7.2012 included partnership firms, registered or not, as liable for service tax. The appellant argued that prior to this amendment, they were not obligated to pay service tax as recipients of GTA services. The learned AR representing the authorities below reiterated their findings, asserting that since the appellants were registered under another law and held a PAN from the Income Tax Department, they were liable for service tax as recipients of GTA services. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that a previous decision had granted a stay on service tax demand for C&F agency services based on a High Court ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the service tax demand on C&F agency services and stayed the recovery during the appeal. Regarding the GTA services, the Tribunal noted that the appellants were unregistered partnership firms during the disputed period and were brought under the service tax net from 1.7.2012 onwards. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case for waiver of predeposit concerning GTA services. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of predeposit and stayed the recovery of GTA service tax during the pendency of the appeal.
|
