9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice is rendered in relation to the business of the recipient. In the present case, the appellant, as a contractor, has engaged in collecting statutory levies on behalf of the Government department (CTD)/ statutory authority (NHAI) neither of whom are engaged in business. Secondly, we are of the view that the levy of Service Tax cannot be sustained on the Commission retained by the appellant.' As issue has already been decided by this Tribunal holding that on activity of collection of amount over and above the bid amount, no service tax can be levied on such an activity under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. As appellant was engaged in collecting statutory levies on behalf of the government department which is not engaged in a business. Therefore, following the said decision, the demand against the appellant is not sustainable for non-payment of service tax on an amount of royalty collected over and above the bid amount. In view of this, the demand of Rs.21,87,591/- is dropped. Demand of service tax for the period July 2012 to March 2014 confirmed against the appellant for non-payment of service tax on rent amount received in lieu of renting the hotel premises which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to the Explanation 1 to Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Act, service tax was not leviable on the renting of buildings used solely for the purposes of accommodation including hotels. Hence, the appellant was neither charging nor paying any service tax on such lease rent received from their tenant. However, w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the appellant was duly paying service tax on the rent amount. 3. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing demand of service tax for non-payment of service tax on amount of royalty collected over and above the bid amount during the period April 2009 to March 2012 and for nonpayment of service tax on the rent amount received in lieu of renting the hotel premise which is used solely for running the hotel for the period April 2010 to March 2014 and non-payment of service tax on notional interest on security deposit collected by the appellant as per lease dated 01.01.2010. In adjudication, the demand of service tax on renting of immovable property was dropped for the period prior to 01.07.2012. Demand of service tax on notional interest was also dropped and penalty proposed under Section 76 of the Act was also dropped. 4. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties, consider submission and peruse the records. 9. We find that a demand has been against the appellant for non-payment of service tax on amount of royalty collected over and above the bid amount during the April 2009 to March 2012. The said issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of Mateshwari Indrani Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The facts of the case are as under: The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No. 63/2013-14 dated 02/09/2013 and covers the period of dispute April, 2007 to March, 2012. The appellant is engaged as a contractor on behalf of the Government Departments to collect sales tax, royalty and toll tax. The appellant participated in the bids floated by National Highways Authorities of India (NHAI); Department of Mines and Geology (DMG); and Commercial Tax Department, Rajasthan State (CTD). For NHAI, the appellant worked as a contractor in the collection of toll tax. For DMG, likewise, they were contractors for collection of royalty on mines. In respect of Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of goods, or provision or receipt of services, for a consideration, and includes any person who, while acting on behalf of another person i. Deals with goods or services or documents of title to such goods or services; or ii. Collects payment of sale price of such goods or services; or iii. Guarantees for collection or payment for such goods or services; or iv. Undertakes any activities relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or services; The Commissioner has taken the view that the appellant will be covered within the above definition since they are providing the service of collection of tax even if it may not be a taxable service. He is of the view that such services have been provided to the Government agencies. But before jumping to the conclusion that the appellant falls within the above category, it is necessary to examine whether the recipient of the service is engaged in business or commerce so as to be covered by Business Auxiliary Service . Such a view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Sukhmani Society in Citizen Services (Supra) where the Tribunal has observed:- 7 .For rendering Business Auxiliary Service, there will be three persons e.g. A, B a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
