9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1383 - 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. As regards GTA service, we find that 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 pre-deposit. Accordingly, waiver of pre-deposit is granted on GTA services availed and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of service tax dues for C&F Agent and recipient of GTA service. Analysis: The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking waiver of predeposit of entire dues related to service tax demands. The appellant, functioning as a C&F Agent and availing GTA services, faced confirmed service tax demands of Rs. 1,24,975 under C&F Agent services and Rs. 2,50,828 as the recipient of GTA services. The consultant argued that the service tax demanded for C&F Agent services is a reimbursable expense under Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Referring to previous decisions, it was highlighted that the Tribunal had granted a stay in similar cases. The consultant also contended that during the relevant period, the appellant, being an unregistered partnership firm, was not liable to pay service tax as a recipient of GTA services as per the definition provided. The amendment effective from 1.7.2012 included partnership firms, whether registered or not, under the purview of service tax liability. The appellant had only obtained a PAN from the income tax authorities, not being registered with the Registrar of Firms. The AR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing that since the appellants were registered under other laws and held a PAN with the Income Tax Department, they were obligated to pay service tax as recipients of GTA services. Upon considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that in a previous case, stay had been granted concerning the service tax demand on C&F agency following a decision by the High Court of Delhi. Consequently, the service tax demand on C&F agency was waived, and recovery was stayed pending the appeal. Regarding GTA services, it was observed that during the disputed period, the appellants were an unregistered partnership firm. The Tribunal acknowledged that unregistered partnership firms were brought under the service tax net from 1.7.2012 onwards. Hence, prima facie, the appellants established a case for the waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit on GTA services availed and stayed the recovery during the appeal process. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the concerned members.
|
