9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x of Rs.23,19,378/- arises out of the assessment the petitioner had provided Business Auxiliary Service to M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Limited for promoting the business of the later as a Computer Reservation System provider. The petitioner is a travel agent which uses the automated reservation system/ global distribution system developed by M/s Amadeus, with whom the petitioner entered into a business relationship through its Indian arm M/s Amadeus India Pvt. Limited. M/s Amadeus India payed commission to the petitioner for using the software connectivity tool through a compatible hardware provide d by M/s Amadeus India which enabled the to service the petitioner's petitioner to book airline tickets of several airlines, to service the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner itself but for an earlier period. By this order the Commissioner (AppeaIs) concluded that the amount received from M /s Amadeus India is not taxable under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, as M/s Amadeus India was not the client of the petitioner and any support extended by the petitioner falls under the category of business support service w.e.f. 01.05.2006 and not Business Auxiliary Service. The order dated 29.06.2011 by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai is also in respect of petitioner herein, taking a substantially similar view. The order dated 23.08.2011 also by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai is in respect of a similarly circumstanced travel agency, M/s Starlines which also had a business relationship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, with regard to booking of tickets of the airlines, by travel agents such as the petitioner. Prima facie, it does not appear that the commission received by the petitioner from M/s Amadeus for using its software and hardware, falls outside the pale of Business Auxiliary Service, provided by the petitioner to M/s Amadeus India. However, whether a case of wilful suppression or contravention of the provisions of Act with an intent to evade tax can be said to have occurred, is a matter to be considered at the final hearing. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore and Chennai and the conflict in the interim order in Jose Travels are illustrative of an extant ambiguity in the legal position, at least for the nonce. 5. At present the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
