TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills and remitted the same to the 4th respondent. In other words, it is a double payment of service tax which cannot be disputed under the facts. There is no reason why such an amount should be retained by the 3rd respondent - refund allowed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, both had discharged their own service tax liability." 3. The petitioner submits that having discharged the entire liability, the petitioner was entitled for refund of the amount remitted by Airport Authority of India to the 3rd respondent. Since no action had been taken in the matter, the petitioner had approached various authorities and ultimately his claim had been rejected as per Ext.P14. In Ext.P14 it is found that the service tax paid by the licensee can be availed as CENVAT credit by the licensee and the airport entry fee is directly collected by the licensee from visitors through issue of airport entry ticket. In the said circumstances, it was found that the question of refund does not arise. The Airport Authority of India hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant deposits a licence fees of ₹ 2,66,797/- per month to AAI but it collects the required fees from the users of the facility and provide all facilities to such customers. S.65 Clause 105(zzm) of Finance Act, 1994 defines 'taxable service' to mean any person, by airports authority or any person authorised by it, in an airport or a civil enclave. It is thus crystal clear that the appellant being a person authorized by AAI to provide service in express terms and conditions, it becomes liable to pay such tax as it was an authorized person to provide taxable service and collect the admission ticket charges on a contract basis." 6. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|