9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or subscription or any other amount whereas in the current case the amount is received for non-provision of any services by the club to its members. Hence, it is our considered view that the same cannot be made taxable for the period prior to 1-7-2012. Further as regards the period w.e.f. 1-7-2012, since the introduction of definition of service as well as declared service under Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994, the Appellants have already paid the tax on the same, we do not find any reason to interfere on the taxability for the said period and the amount being already paid by the Appellant on this score. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The impugned SCN dated 22-4-2013 relates to the period 2007 to 2012 by invoking extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/- and further letters from Range office seeking data of minimum billing amount charged from its members for the period Oct., 2007 to Oct., 2012 which culminated to a SCN dated 22-42013 where in a demand of ₹ 5,02,565/- along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was proposed on the amounts collected as minimum billing by the Appellant from its members. The Appellant submitted its reply and stated that it has started paying service tax on such amounts w.e.f. 1-7-2012 with the introduction of negative list service and that there cannot be any liability prior to that date as there was no provision of taxable services rendered by the Appellant prior to 1-7-2012. The Ld. Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or any other amount, but does not include the following...", any sum received on account of non-provision of service cannot be made taxable in absence of any taxable service per se. The Ld. CA placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gondwana Club v. Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex., Nagpur [2016 (42) S.T.R. 895 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. The Ld. CA further submitted that the amount of service tax for the period July, 2012 to Oct., 2012 for ₹ 44,298/- has also not been appropriated by both the Adjudicating and the Appellate authority which needs to be appropriated as the same was paid on 30-3-2013 vide consolidated Challan No. 09828 for ₹ 4,94,400/-. He also stated that the issue being an interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .f. 1-7-2012, since the introduction of definition of service as well as declared service under Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994, the Appellants have already paid the tax on the same, we do not find any reason to interfere on the taxability for the said period and the amount being already paid by the Appellant on this score. Further, on the aspect of limitation also, we find that the impugned SCN dated 22-4-2013 relates to the period 2007 to 2012 by invoking extended period of limitation whereas the Appellant has contended that on the similar issue for period prior to 2007, the department has already dropped the audit query on minimum billing taxability and hence the demand is also time-barred for there is no change in the law relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
