9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the petitioner/appellant despite earlier notice intimating the date of hearing of the stay application. It is now stated that the counsel for the petitioner could not appear on 8.1.2013 on account of pre-occupation in another appellate forum and an application for adjournment was filed with the Registry by speed post on 1.3.2013. 2. In view of what is pleaded in the present application, we are inclined to recall the order dated 8.1.2013 and consider stay application No. 2216/2012 afresh. We dispose of stay application No. 2216/2012 also by this order after hearing the ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the ld. Representative for the respondent/Revenue. 3. The substantive appeal is preferred against the appellate order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular dated 27.12.2001 which, to the extent relevant and material reads :- "The taxable service in case of photography service is any service provided to a customer, by photography studio or agency in relation to photography in any manner. However, the collection centers merely collect the exposed film from photography studio not having processing facility/photographers and get it developed from a processing lab. For rendering this service they normally receive commission/handling charges from the processing labs and in some cases they may recover handling charges from the customers also. As they do not undertake any activity of taking the photographs or processing thereof, they do not fall in the category of photography studi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it is perhaps possible for Revenue to contend that collection of negatives of photographs from customers, for forwarding the same for processing to different photography agencies and re-collection of such processed material for return to the customers, also constitutes the taxable photography service as defined in Section 65(105)(zb). It is however seen that the CBEC Circular dated 27.12.2001, on a true and fair construction of its phraseology leads to the singular conclusion that where a collection centre merely collects exposed film, does not having processing facility/ photographers but gets it developed from a processing lab and receives commission/handling charges for this activity, either from the processing labs or from customers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es provided by a collection centre, are not taxable in the category of photography service. 9. If the petitioner had arranged its affairs and assumed immunity to tax on the basis of the "clarification" issued by the CBEC, in no circumstances can a citizen be considered to have suppressed from Revenue that taxable transaction. An extended period of limitation cannot therefore be invoked. The fact that the circular dated 27.12.2001 was withdrawn later in 2007/2008 would not derogate from the vitality of the Circular to influence a citizen arranging his affairs in accordance therewith, during the currency of such circular. 10. On the aforesaid premises, we consider it appropriate on the present and prima facie analysis of the case, to grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
