Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 201 - CESTAT NEW DELHINon-payment of service tax - aviation services - failure to provide unit wise and year wise information in respect of amount received as aviation income by the appellant or by its other unit at Delhi and the service tax, if any, paid - territorial jurisdiction - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The documents on record establish that the income shown in the returns as well as balance sheet is one amount under the head of “aviation income” but the activities performed are two separate activities. One is Supply of Tangible Goods by chartering the aircraft and another is dry leasing the aircrafts along with all its control and possession. The said activity of leasing out the aircraft with all rights of use therein to the lessee, to our understanding is a deemed sale under Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution and thus is excluded from the charge of service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) and Section 66B of the Act. Thus, it becomes clear that the income earned by M/s. JSPL, Delhi from dry leasing arrangements is not chargeable to service tax during the relevant period but value for this activity is included in the impugned amount. It was mandatory for the department as well as the adjudicating authority to take note of the bifurcation which was provided by the appellant at very initial stage of filing reply to the show cause notice and also the C.A. Certificate dated 10.03.2016 filed subsequently. Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The commissionerate, Raipur had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice demanding the tax for such service which was provided by the appellant’s unit in Delhi. Time Limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The tax on the amount receipts stands already discharged by M/s. JSPL Delhi. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the present is not at all a case of tax evasion. Appellant was regularly filing the returns, is found to have maintained the proper documents. Question of alleged suppression does not at all arise. The extended period has wrongly been invoked. The entire period of demand gets hit by the bar of limitation. The order under challenge is hereby set aside. Appeal stands allowed.
|