9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the Appellant to the State Government does not amount to the provision of any service. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund of Rs.30,68,750/- and also interest upon the said amount, from the date of deposit till the date of grant of refund @ of 12% per annum. Such refund and interest should be granted within a period of Ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - HON BLE MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Bipin Garg , Advocate , Ms. Stuti Saggi , Advocate Shri Jwaria Kainaat , Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. K. Choudhary , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER P. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued proposing rejection of refund claim on the ground that service tax on the export pass fee is payable as per Notification No.30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 as amended vide Notification No.18/2016-5.1. dated 01.03.2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The Appellants denied the allegations, submitted relevant documents along with Chartered Accountant s certificate stating that the burden of service tax was borne by the Appellant. The Appellant also relied upon the Judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.1646 of 2004 dated 03.08.2016 in the case of Industrial Organics Ltd. vs. State of UP and others. The Hon ble High Court after relying upon the case of Bindal Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Others vs. State of UP and Others [2004 UPTC 564] quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, we find that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the Export Pass fee and Import Pass fee, Storage License Renewal fee, Excise Staff Salary and Overtime charges, Permit fee paid to the State Excise department. With regard to other fees, Learned Commissioner himself has granted relief in view of the amendment made in Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2019 with retrospect. Here it is pertinent to refer to the amendment in Section 117(1) vide Finance Act, 2019 which is reproduced herein below : 117.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 66B of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intoxicating liquors and fees in respect of any of the matters in this List excluding fees taken in any Court. We further note that to deal with intoxicating liquor is part of the State responsibility and it is in exercise of these privileges, State has exclusive rights to manufacture, possession, consumption, transport etc. of liquor within its territory and to grant licenses and permits to ensure compliance. Further, we find that in August, 2019, the Finance Act, 2019 was enacted amending Section 66B of the Act, to the effect that service tax was not leviable on services provided by the State Government by way of grant of liquor licenses against consideration in the form of license fee or application fee by whatever name called , during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that there is no quid pro quo between the Staff Salary and the services rendered hence the same is not liable to service tax. As far as levy of service tax on Storage License fee for CO2 is concerned, we find that Learned Commissioner has observed that the said license is issued to the appellant by the State Excise department for the specific purpose of storing CO2. The appellant has paid the fee against the renewal of license for storing CO2 which fact is admitted by Ashish Jain, Manager of appellant in his statement dated 5-2-2018. In our view, the Learned Commissioner has rightly upheld the demand of service tax on Storage License Renewal fee which cannot be considered as fee paid towards grant of liquor license. Moreover, the Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allow the appeal of the appellant partly to the extent noted above. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. 9. Following the ratio of the above judgement of the Division Bench, I am of the view that the fees paid by the Appellant to the State Government does not amount to the provision of any service. 10. The learned counsel further relied upon the case of Industrial Organics Ltd. vs. State of UP and others, in which the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.1646 of 2004 after relying upon the case of Bindal Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Others vs. State of UP and Others [2004 UPTC 564] quashed the Notification dated 31.03.2004 imposing export pass fees with retrospective effect. He submitted that when the Hon ble High Court quashed the export p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
