9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (8) TMI 4 - SC - Service TaxEffect of retrospective validation of service tax on GTA services for the period prior to 1-6-1998 - the amended Section 73 covers the case of assesses who are liable to file return under Section 70. In respect of GTA, the liability to file return was cast on the appellant s u/s 71A. The class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73. Therefore, the show cause notices issued u/s 73 are not maintainable - Revenue appeal dismissed
Issues involved:
Challenge to judgment of various Benches of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding imposition of penalty and recovery of interest for alleged contravention of provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The judgment addresses multiple appeals with common points challenging CESTAT's decisions. The respondents were service availers, not providers, who were asked to explain why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Central Excise Authorities demanded service tax and interest for delayed payment based on retrospective amendments. The Tribunal referred to Section 73 of the Finance Act, emphasizing that during the relevant period, only assessees liable to file returns under Section 70 could be subject to notices. Since service receivers were not required to file returns under Section 70 before 2003, the Tribunal quashed the orders demanding service tax. The revenue argued that CESTAT's view was unsustainable due to retrospective provisions, while respondents' counsel supported the Tribunal's decisions. In a similar case, the Supreme Court previously upheld the Tribunal's conclusions that Section 73 only applied to assesses liable to file returns under Section 70, not those under Section 71A. The Court agreed that show cause notices invoking Section 73 were not maintainable for those falling under Section 71A. Therefore, based on the precedent set in the previous case, the Court found no merit in the present appeals and dismissed them.
|
