9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel that it is an activity of the association for its members and strongly relied upon the decision of the Honble Jharkhand High Court in case of Ranchi Club Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax [2012 (6) TMI 636 - Jharkhand High Court]. The Hon’ble High Court observed that if club provides any service to its members may be in any form, including as mandap keeper, then it is not a service by one to another in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In our considered view, the activities of the applicant in the present case are rendering service on behalf of the members in their business, and earned commission, which would not come within the purview of normal course of activities of club or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of the tax which should be Rs.3,01,827/-, out of which they have paid Rs.3,91,479/-. He submits that the demand of tax on Business Auxiliary Service cannot be sustained for the reason that the entire transaction is sale and purchase of certificates on the basis of CDM Emission Purchase Agreement . He drew the attention of the Bench the relevant portion of the agreement which would show that the entire transaction is sale and purchase between the applicant-association and the Sweden company. The next submission is that the applicant rendered the service to their own members which would not come within the service tax net. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eden Company and it is covered under the activity of commission agent under the Business Auxiliary Service. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Century Club Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore- 2010 (17) STR 337 (Kar.). He also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Green Environment Services Cooperative society Vs. Union of India 2009 (13) STR 250 (Guj.). He further submits that the applicant did not disclose the earning of commission to the Department. Hence, it is a suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, prima facie, we are unable to accept the submission of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
