9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese circumstances, the appellant is a recipient of the service provided by ‘management, maintenance or repair’ service providers. It, therefore, does not appear to be logical for the appellant to be taxed as a provider of the service on collection from the owners and, hence, liability to tax under section 66 of Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable. Health and fitness service - it is alleged, that the tax has not been paid despite these being consideration for providing ‘health and fitness service’ - Held that: - The appellant has been paying tax as provider of ‘club or associates service’ ever since that was included as a taxable entry in section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994. No evidence has been placed on record by Revenue that the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fitness service during the later period. 2. The tax, as provider of business auxiliary service , was fastened on the appellant in relation to the reimbursement of share of expense pertaining to common usage by the other companies in the group and, on which the appellant had been discharging service tax liability as provider of support services of business and commerce with effect from 1 st May 2006. The adjudication order has found that the appellant had been promoting or marketing the service of a client and hence liable to tax under section 65 (105) (zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. The demand pertaining to provision of management, maintenance or repair service in the two orders relates to the operation of the buildings constructed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges that the appellant has been promoting the services provided by the client implying that the appellant is an intermediary between these group companies and the ultimate customers of those companies. However, we find no evidence that such a mediatory role has been performed by the appellant in relation to the operations for which the other companies in the group were brought into existence. Consequently, the presumption the group companies are clients of the appellant or that their customers are handled by appellant, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the specific category within section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable. 6. The appellant is the developer of properties, and, in accordance with the Maharashtra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
