9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udget speech, we are of the view that the tax has been paid wrongly and the respondents are not liable to pay any Service Tax. In these circumstances, we uphold the impugned orders and reject revenue’s appeals. - C/200-201/2008 - 527-528/2009 - Dated:- 12-3-2009 - Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (Technical) and Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) (Final Order Nos. 527-528/2009 dt. 12.3.2009 certified on 21.5.2009 in Appeal Nos. C/200-201/2008) Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR for Appellant. S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar R. Dakshina Murthy, Advs. for Respondents Per T.K. Jayaraman: Revenue has filed these two appeals against the following impugned Orders-in-Appeal. (i) Order-in-Appeal No.5/2008 G (ST); dated 20.2.2008; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Board is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: These notifications exempt taxable services from so much of service tax as specified therein, irrespective of the person made liable to pay service tax. It is, therefore, clarified that any person who is made liable to pay service tax, while discharging service tax liability on such service, is entitled to avail of the benefit of exemption in terms of aforesaid notifications No. 32/2004-ST and No.1/ 2006-ST, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein by adopting the procedure prescribed vide para-31 of Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27.7.2005. The procedure prescribed is that a declaration by the service provider, in all such cases, on the consignment note, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be strictly followed by the tax payees. The administrative difficulties, illiteracy or any such inconvenience cannot be a ground for not following the statutory provisions. The transporters are bound to issue consignment note or bills or challans as defined in Rule 4 (B) of Service Tax Rules or any other serially numbered bills. Failure to do so would be a violation of law. The appellants, if they are finding difficulty in getting the consignment bill, then they should engage only those transporters who follow the law. I do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are rejected. This decision of the Tribunal is aptly applicable to the present case wherein the demands were confirmed in the absence of declarations from the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment's appeals are supposed to be legislative intent of introducing Service Tax on GTA, which was on agents of truck owners/operators and not on the owners and operators themselves. It was clarified that the Apex Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. UOI - 1999 (33) RLT 911 (SC)=1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC) had held that Service Tax could not be levied on service receiver with regard to Goods Transport Operator or GTO services by means of rules framed under the Act, when the Act required tax to be levied on Service providers. Therefore, while introducing the law on GTA services, the Union Minister of Finance specifically clarified on the floor of the parliament to allay the doubts and fears of the truck owners and operators while present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, speeches made by the mover of the bill on the Floor of the Parliament are admissible as an aid to construe a statute. Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of KP Varghese Vs. ITO - 1981 (131) ITR 597 (SC). 6.4 The service provider under Section 65 (50b) of the Act is goods transport agency and not goods transport operator/owner . In other words, there must be services rendered by a GTA (under a contract of agency) and if the truck is provided by a goods transport operator or owner himself, then there would be no Service Tax, since the charge would fail. This is because what is tax is the services rendered by a goods transport agency in relation to transport of goods by road. It was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deprived of his property save by authority of law. 6.8 It was strongly urged that the Commissioner (A) in the operative portion of the order has held that the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The relief was claimed in ground 4(j) before the lower authority. Therefore, respondents are entitled for the refund. The chart showing the details of the Service Tax paid by the respondents during the period was submitted. 7. The learned Joint CDR reiterated the grounds of appeal. 8. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. The main contention of the appellant is that they had paid the Service Tax wrongly because the services have been rendered by individual truck owners and not by goods transport agency. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
