9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1275 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - sharing of profit - share of revenue paid to the appellant for the services jointly provided by the applicant along with M/s. Geojit Commodities Ltd. - Held that - M/s. Geojit Commodities had been discharging service tax under the category of forward contract service regularly and if tax were to be collected from the appellant it would amount to taxing the same service twice - reliance placed in the case of VIJAY SHARMA & CO. VERSUS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH 2010 (4) TMI 570 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that the same service cannot be taxed twice - appeal allowed.
Issues:
Demand of service tax on revenue share for services jointly provided with another company. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the impugned order confirmed a demand for service tax on the share of revenue paid to the appellant for services provided jointly with another company. The demand was confirmed on the grounds that the appellant was providing Business Auxiliary Services to the other company. However, the appellant argued that they had entered into an agreement to conduct commodity futures broking activities exclusively using the facilities provided by the other company, which was already discharging service tax under a different category. The appellant contended that taxing them would amount to double taxation of the same service. The appellant relied on previous decisions, including one by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and another by the Larger Bench, which established that the same service cannot be taxed twice. The tribunal found the appellant's submissions valid and agreed with them. The tribunal, after considering the arguments and the precedents cited, decided to take up the appeal itself for a final decision, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the stay applications and the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment was pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
