2009 (7) TMI 255 - AT - Service Tax

Judicial discipline issue of service tax liability of recipient of Goods Transport Operator service during the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998 settled by SC in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2004 (1) TMI 111 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Commissioner (Appeals) takes note of all the above judgments, while reiterating submissions of the appellant, but does not deal with them, while arriving at findings against them. - The adjudicating as well as appellate authorities, while deciding matters, have to keep in mind that once a law is declared by the higher appellate forum on a disputed issue, the same should be followed - doing the same amounts to not following the judicial discipline and putting the assessee/appellants to unnecessary harassments and litigation expenses - the appellate authority has chosen to remain silent on the said relied upon judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court. If that is done, the entire system of judicial hierarchy gets defeated Impugned order set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of duty and penalty
2. Demand of service tax for GTA service availed during a specific period
3. Applicability of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. case

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, with the Member (J) deciding to dispense with this condition after hearing both sides. The appeal is proceeded with as the issue falls under the purview of a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. The demand of service tax is confirmed against the appellant for availing GTA service during a specified period. The lower authorities upheld the tax liability based on the amendment of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 in 2003, making the GTA service receiver liable to pay duty for the past period as well.

3. The issue of the applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. case is extensively discussed. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following precedents set by higher appellate forums. It criticizes the adjudicating and appellate authorities for not considering the judgments cited, leading to unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses for the appellants. The Member (J) highlights the significance of upholding judicial discipline and ensuring that laws declared by higher courts are followed in deciding matters. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the stay petition along with the appeal is allowed.