9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the appellant and are being paid by the appellant for such working done by the agents. As such, at this prima facie stage, we are of the view that such collection of sign of fee of Rs.15,000/- services so as to tax the same. - major part of the demand is barred by limitation. - full stay granted. - 55447 of 2013 - SO/56939/2013-EX(BR) - Dated:- 13-3-2013 - Archana Wadhwa and Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Nageshwas Rao and Rajeshwari K G, Advs. For the Respondent: Pramod Kumar, Jt. CDR. Archana Wadhwa:- 1. After hearing both sides duly represented by learned advocate Shri. Nageshwas Rao for the appellants and Shri Pramod Kumar, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue. We find that appellant is engaged in the bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the applicant which stand confirmed by the lower authorities to the extent of Rs.91,31,824/- and equal amount of penalty. 4. The appellants main stand is that such agents are not franchise inasmuch as there is no franchise agreement between them and the agents. They are poor agents working for the appellant and merely because the bills are being raised by them under the cover of appellants name, does not mean that they can conduct their business independently. The entire business has to be conducted through the appellant and the dues collected by the agents are handed over to the appellant who further deposit the same with the service providers. Such activities being done by the agents on some payments made by the appellant. As such sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciating the submissions made by both the sides, we prima facie agree with the learned advocate. Condition No.3 of the agreement as reproduced above makes it clear that said agents are being paid by the appellants for the services done by them in respect of each transaction. The franchise agreement is allowing another person to use the brand name or trade name etc. for his own business. In the present case, agents so appointed by the appellant are not doing their own independent business in there own name but are raising invoices in the name of the appellants and are actually working for the appellant and are being paid by the appellant for such working done by the agents. As such, at this prima facie stage, we are of the view that such co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
