2018 (2) TMI 935 - AT - Service Tax

Goods Transport Operator services during the period 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998 - reverse charge mechanism - Department was of the view that the service tax is liable to be paid by appellant as a recipient of service on reverse charge basis, for the above period - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara-I Vs. Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT has held that 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on Goods Transport Operator services received by the appellant.
2. Review proceedings reversing the decision of dropping the demand for service tax.
3. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Review passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, demanding service tax on Goods Transport Operator services received by the appellant during a specific period. The original adjudication dropped the service tax demand, but the Commissioner in the review proceedings reversed this decision, leading to the appeal. The issue revolved around the liability of the appellant to pay service tax as a recipient of service on a reverse charge basis. The appellant argued that a previous decision by the Tribunal favored them, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case. The Tribunal noted that the issue was indeed covered in favor of the appellants by previous decisions and the legal position established by the Supreme Court in relevant cases.

The Tribunal referred to specific cases where it was held that recipients of Goods Transport Operator services during a certain period were not liable to pay service tax based on the applicable provisions of the Finance Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision in a particular case was holding the field until any contrary decision was made by a higher authority. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the Supreme Court had followed its own decision in a related case, further supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, aligning with the legal precedents and judgments cited during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, previous judgments, and the established legal position by higher authorities. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing consistency with legal precedents and the Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal's analysis and decision provided clarity on the liability of the appellant for service tax on Goods Transport Operator services, resolving the dispute raised in the review proceedings.