9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 487 - HC - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Tour operator service - respondent is engaged in providing package tours to domestic destination as well as international tourist spots - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is based on the decision of the High Court of Deli in TRAVELITE (INDIA) VERSUS UOI AND OTHERS 2014 (8) TMI 200 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The aforesaid decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VERSUS M/S TRAVELITE (INDIA) 2014 (12) TMI 1099 - SC ORDER and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, in the factual situation of the case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending before this Court. In the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Tribunal dated 21.06.2016 and 15.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal as well as the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are hereby quashed and the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to await the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition pending before it and to decide the appeal before it in the light of the decision which may be rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid special leave petition. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Taxability of services under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Appeal allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the decision of the High Court of Delhi. 4. Stay granted by the Supreme Court on the decision of the High Court of Delhi. 5. Quashing of orders passed by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) pending the decision of the Supreme Court. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, a firm registered under the Act as a provider of "Tour Operator Services," was found to have engaged tour operators in foreign countries, resulting in a demand for service tax. The liability was initially determined at ?6,41,311/- by the adjudicating authority. 2. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal relying on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Travelite (India) Vs. Union of India. The revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal citing the tax amount being less than ?10,00,000/- and the Circular dated 17.12.2015. Subsequent applications for restoration of the appeal were rejected by the Tribunal. 3. The revenue contended that the decision of the Delhi High Court in Travelite (India) case had been stayed by the Supreme Court, and the matter was pending before it. Therefore, they requested quashing of the orders passed by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) and remittance of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling. 4. The High Court acknowledged the stay granted by the Supreme Court on the Delhi High Court's decision and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to await the Supreme Court's decision in the pending Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the orders passed by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) were quashed, and the appeal was disposed of, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. This detailed analysis provides an overview of the legal judgment involving various issues related to the appeal, taxability of services, reliance on previous decisions, and the impact of the Supreme Court's stay on the case.
|
