Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (10) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... transporter operators during the period November 16, 1997 to June 1, 1998. These services were liable to service tax under section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, by virtue of retrospective amendment made vide sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000. After the enactment of Finance Act, service tax was payable on the value of taxable service received by the appellants from goods transport operators. They did not discharge the service tax liability. Show cause notices were issued to all the appellants in January, 2003 proposing to demand the service tax payable on the services received by them from goods transport operators under sections 72 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contested the service tax liability. The adjudi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r like the appellants are concerned there was no date for filing return. This is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati's case [2005] 1 VST 24; [1999] 112 ELT 365. In paragraph 12 of the above judgment it was observed as follows: 'These sections clearly show that the return which has to be filed pertains to the payments which are received by the person rendering the service in respect of the value of the taxable services. Surely, this is a type of information which cannot under any circumstances, be supplied by the customer. Moreover, the operative part of sub-section (1) of section 70 clearly stipulates that it is the person responsible for collecting the service tax who is to furnish the return. By .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... carriage for the period commencing on and from the 16th day of November, 1997 and ending with the 2nd day of June, 1998, shall be deemed always to have been a person liable to pay service tax, for such services provided to him, to the credit of the Central Government.' In view of the above provision, the appellants are deemed to be persons liable to pay service tax and shall pay service tax as specified in section 66. Recently inserted section 71A reads as follows: 'Section 71A. Filing of return by certain customers. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of sections 69 and 70, the provisions thereof shall not apply to a person referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 68 for the filing of return .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been under-assessed or service tax has not been paid or has been short-paid or any sum has erroneously been refunded. He may in cases falling under clause (a), at any time within five years, and in cases falling under clause (b), at any time within one year, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed or has not been paid or has been short-paid, or to whom any sum has been erroneously refunded, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. 73(3) For the purpose of this section, relevant date means: (i) the case of taxable service in respect of which service tax has escaped assessment or has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of show cause notice and also under the provisions as amended by Finance Act, 2003. In the result, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeals. The Revenue was aggrieved by the abovesaid decision of the Tribunal in the case of L. H. Sugar Factories case [2004] 61 RLT 142. Hence they took the issue to the honourable Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its judgment as reported in Commissioner of Central Excise v. L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd. [2006] 4 VST 91 (SC); [2005] 187 ELT 5 (SC) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal. In the present case, the issue is identical to the issue in the case of L. H. Sugar Factories case [2004] 61 RLT 142. Since the honourable Supreme Court has upheld the order of the division Bench of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates