9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BAS and BSS - Under BSS also several activities are listed as exigible under that head - In the absence of proposal in the show-cause notice as to the liability of the assessee under the precise provision in the Act, find the demand to be not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - ST/566/2009 - 1299/2010 - Dated:- 20-10-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. This appeal filed by M/s. United Telecoms Ltd. (UTL), Hyderabad challenges an order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained demand of service tax confirmed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and maintaining of the system on a turn key basis including supply of consumables stationary and media, and other material essentially to provide the services and meeting the cost of electricity, telecommunication, water, house keeping, security and connectivity charges at the e-Seva centre for entire contract period of five years. (v) At the end of five years, all the hardware and software to be handed over to the Government in working condition. (vi) The electricity connection and leased lines required for connectivity have to be obtained in the name of the Government. (vii) Servers of the participating departments like Transco, Municipalities etc. have been procured and installed and managed by the concerned departments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), the notice also indicated that the services rendered by UTL equally merited classification under BSS of clause (104c) of Section 65 of the Act. The notice stated that a show cause notice dt. 8-1-2008 had been issued to UTL for demanding service tax of Rs. 1,06,23,697/- pertaining to the period 2003-2004 to October, 2007 and the same had been adjudicated confirming the demand vide Order-in-Original No. 22/2008-S.T., dt. 25-11-2008. Adjudicating the show cause notice, the Jt. Commissioner relied on the findings of the Commissioner contained in the above Order-in-Original No. 22/2008-S.T., dt. 25-11-2008. He reproduced and relied on the findings of the Commissioner in his order. The Jt. Commissioner noted that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner recorded the following findings:- As seen from the case records, the various participating entities such as BSNL, AP Transco, Airtel etc. enter into an agreement with the e-Seva for collection of bill amounts on payment of service charges to the latter. In turn the Director, e-Seva enters into an agreement with the appellants and the latter as a Technology Partner provides online transaction access or facility in respect of uitility bills/tax payments, issue of certificates permits to the citizens. For the services so rendered, the appellants get paid by the Director, e-Seva on a monthly basis based on the number of transactions. As contended by the appellants, there is no contract between them and the citizen and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. (b) The appellants had challenged the demand claiming that the impugned activity was not covered under any of the sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of clause (19) of Section 65 of the Act. The appellate authority had ignored these arguments. Under the e-Seva scheme the relevant data were maintained by the participating entities themselves. The appellant s right was limited to accessing the data of the participating entities and update them upon payment of cash and issue receipts. In the absence of contract between the appellant and the citizens or consideration flowing from them, e-Seva could not be held as taxable service. It is submitted that the UTL neither provided services to the Director, e-Seva nor acted as their agent. There was no pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Original Authority had arrived at a weird conclusion by classifying the service under more than one head. However, he found that various participating entities such as BSNL, AP Transco, Airtel etc. entered into an agreement with e-Seva for collection of bill amounts on payment of service charges. In turn the Director, e-Seva entered into agreement with UTL and the latter provided online transaction access or facilities in respect of payments, issue of certificates and permits to the citizens as a technology partner. For the services so rendered, Director, e-Seva paid UTL on a monthly basis based on the number of transactions. This constituted service on behalf of the client i.e. Director, e-Seva for a consideration. Hence, the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
