9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 558 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - rent-a-cab services - Held that - The issue involved in the instant case were specifically addressed by Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vijay Travels 2015 (1) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that Petitioner cannot escape tax liability on the ground that the hiring is different from renting as the intention of the Government is to tax service provider of a service which involves both hiring and renting of a cab for a longer duration and distinction as sought to be carved out by the petitioner is not finding favour with this Court. Demand upheld - however, the demand beyond the period of limitation is set aside - appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty regarding service tax on rent-a-cab services.
Analysis: The appeal was filed by M/s Sanghvi Travels challenging the demand and penalty related to service tax. The appellant argued that they provide vehicles for transportation on a per kilometer or lump sum basis, contending it is not renting but hiring of vehicles. They cited the Tribunal's decision in the case of R.S. Travels and the High Court's decision in the case of Vijay Travels to support their stance. On the other hand, the respondent relied on the impugned order. The Tribunal examined the issues addressed by the High Court in the case of Vijay Travels, which included whether the Rent-a-cab scheme operator covers all forms of transport, whether there was actual renting out of cabs, and if the Tribunal violated judicial discipline or jurisdiction. The High Court answered these questions, stating that some were in favor of the revenue and some in favor of the assessee. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the merit of the issue favored the revenue, but on the matter of limitation, it favored the appellant. Consequently, the demand beyond the limitation period was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed based on this decision. The judgment was pronounced on 11.07.2018 by the Tribunal.
|
