9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment has preferred appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.9981 of 2017. The order of the larger Bench of the Tribunal has not been stayed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.210 of 2009, 246 of 2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 76897-76898/2019 - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - HON BLE SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Mrs. Dimple Jogani, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant/Assessee Shri K.Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER P.K.CHOUDHARY : Both the assessee and the department are in appeal against the impugned common Order-in-Original. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 100/- turnover. (iii) Pension Payment ₹ 60/- per transaction. For carrying out this operation, the appellant is required to maintain account with the RBI instead of RBI or the Government of India having any account with UCO Bank. With this working arrangement, UCO Bank has been permitted to make debit/credit entries in the said account maintained by the appellant with RBI. A show cause notice dated 27.05.2008 was issued alleging that the services of carrying out Government transactions provided by the appellant to the RBI tantamount to providing a taxable service under Banking and Other Financial Services since the transactions are in a way of operation of bank account being one of the specified taxable activity in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any person, by the Reserve Bank of India; (ii) Taxable services provided or to be provided by any person, to the Reserve Bank of India when the service tax for such services is liable to be paid by the Reserve Bank of India under sub-section (2) of section 68 of the said Finance Act read with rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; (iii) Taxable services received in India from outside India by the Reserve Bank of India under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. We find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. S.T., Chandigarh-II v. State Bank of Patiala [2016 (45) S.T.R. 333 (Tri.-LB)]. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also banks which are appointed by RBI as agent under Section 45 of RBI Act. Applying the same analogy, in our view if RBI is exempted from the service tax liability in respect of various services, its agent for doing such services also needs to be extended the same benefit. 7.7 We may also look at the present controversy from another angle. State Bank of Patiala has been appointed by RBI as its agent under Section 45 of the RBI Act. RBI itself has been entrusted by the Central Government to transact Government business. Hence, once State Bank of Patiala has been appointed as agent of RBI, it is transacting Government business which is in the nature of a sovereign function performed on behalf of the Government and hence not liable to Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of revenue any further as facts were totally different, than the facts in the case in hand. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the reference in favour of the respondent and hold that the law as laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank (supra) is correct exposition of law. Present appeal has no merit and dismissed. 6. Further it is being observed that against the larger Bench decision the department has preferred appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.9981 of 2017. The order of the larger Bench of the Tribunal has not been stayed. 7. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant being Service Tax Appeal No.210 of 2009 is allowed and the appeal field by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
