9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1133 - AT - Service TaxRejection of VCES-1 declaration - N/N. 32/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 - the respondent had entered into a contract for supply, erection and commissioning of 33/11 KV sub-station with MSEDCL (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.) - Held that - to avail the benefit of N/N. 32/2010-ST, the provider of service should be either a distribution licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person by whatever name called, authorized to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003, for distribution of electricity - this aspect of the notification has not been examined in the impugned order. It is not to clear as how the respondent falls under this category. Thus the impugned order is not comprehensive to the extent. The review order also does not challenge the applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010, the benefit of which has been granted to the respondents. Matter remanded for re-verification - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 32/2010-ST regarding exemption for distribution of electricity service under the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Qualification requirements for availing Notification No. 32/2010-ST. 3. Examination of the impugned order's comprehensiveness in determining eligibility under Notification No. 32/2010-ST. 4. Challenge to the applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue concerns the rejection of a show-cause notice for the VCES-1 declaration by the respondent. The Commissioner allowed the benefit of Notification No. 32/2010-ST, granting exemption for the distribution of electricity service under the Electricity Act, 2003. The issue raised was whether the respondent, engaged in the creation of a sub-station, qualifies for this exemption as it pertains to distribution of electricity specifically. The AR argued that the respondent must be registered as a distribution licensee, franchisee, or authorized person under the Electricity Act, 2003 to avail the exemption. The impugned order failed to address this crucial aspect, leading to the appeal challenging the decision's adequacy in considering the eligibility criteria under Notification No. 32/2010-ST. 2. The impugned order acknowledged the respondent's entitlement to exemptions under various notifications but did not thoroughly examine the qualification requirements specified under Notification No. 32/2010-ST. The review order did not contest the benefits granted under other notifications or the applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010. However, the lack of clarity on how the respondent fits the criteria of being a distribution licensee, franchisee, or authorized distributor under the Electricity Act, 2003 necessitated a re-verification of the matter. The decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for further scrutiny indicates the importance of meeting the specific eligibility criteria outlined in Notification No. 32/2010-ST for availing the exemption related to the distribution of electricity service. 3. The arguments presented in the appeal highlighted the distinction between different notifications and the specific requirements under Notification No. 32/2010-ST for service providers to be registered under the Electricity Act, 2003. The case law references and interpretations emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive assessment of the respondent's qualifications to benefit from the exemption. The lack of clarity in the impugned order regarding this critical aspect underscored the need for a detailed re-evaluation to ensure compliance with the prescribed conditions for availing the tax exemption related to the distribution of electricity service. 4. The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai on 09.05.2018, as per the pronouncement in court, signifies the significance of adhering to the specific criteria outlined in tax notifications for availing exemptions. The detailed analysis of the issues raised in the appeal and the shortcomings identified in the impugned order emphasize the importance of a thorough examination of eligibility requirements to prevent misinterpretation and ensure the correct application of tax laws and notifications in such cases.
|
