9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that during the scrutiny of balance sheets and other service tax records, it was noticed that Punjab State Warehousing Corporation-respondent had entered into an agreement with M/s Gateway Districtparks Ltd., Mumbai (for short 'GDL') on 12.01.2007. The said agreement was effective from 01.02.2007 for a period of 15 years. The respondent had rented out to GDL the CFS located on plot along with all buildings and permanent structures etc. As per one of the conditions of the agreement, the recipient was required to pay Rs. 35 crore lump-sum as upfront fee in advance to the respondent along with annual fee of Rs. 10 crore. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the extended period of limitation. While adjudicating the impugned show cause notice, the competent authority had held that the services rendered by the respondent-corporation did not fall under the category of "Franchise Service" whereas, the earlier show cause notice was issued to demand service under the category of "Franchise Service." Later on, the impugned show cause notice was issued to demand service tax under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Service." The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-corporation on the ground that pursuant to the show cause notice dated 11.10.2011, the adjudicating authority had held that the service rendered by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has further argued that as per the terms of the agreement dated 12.01.2007, the respondent-corporation has granted all the rights to GDL to operate, manage and carried out permissible activities from the Container Freight Station (CFS). This was to be carried out on an annual fee of Rs.10 crore to be paid in equal quarterly installments. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation has argued that vide order dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure A-5), the authority has set aside three show cause notices dated 25.01.2011, 11.10.2011 and 10.10.2012 by observing that as per agreement dated 12.01.2007, the corporation is registered and assessed to service tax under "Renting of Immovable Property Services" at Chandigarh a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e imposed upon them under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non payment of Service Tax due, which was liable to pay under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iv) Penalty should not be imposed for not obtaining the service tax registration and not filing the ST-3 Return in respect of Franchise Service under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The above show cause notices were issued by the Raigad Commissionerate and Hence, this amount of Rs. 35 crore, which was taken as Franchise Service, was dropped. Even, though the respondent-corporation was registered at Chandigarh, for the purpose of service tax, the Chandigarh Commissionerate had no jurisdiction to issue notice with respect to the franchise service of Rs. 35 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
