Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur Versus Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 987 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 307 (Raj.) , [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 272 (Raj)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-2-2018
D. B. Central/Excise Appeal No. 5 / 2018
Service Tax
K. S. Jhaveri And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.
For the Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
2. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:-
“(i) Whether the CESTAT was justified in restricting the demand of Service Tax to normal period despite holding the activity of the assessee to be classifiable under “Business Auxiliary Service” and liable to Service Tax, when the assessee has concealed and suppressed the said information?
(ii) Wheth
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mount received by the appellant in the name of “facilitation fee”, is commission from various shops and emporia for providing services of promoting or marketing or selling of goods provided or belonging to the emporia/shops, is liable to Service Tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' in terms of clause 19(i) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against the respondent for confirmation of demand of Service Tax in respect of commission received by them within the period April, 2005 to March, 2010, by way of raising a show cause notice (SCN) dated 20.10.2010.
4. Counsel for the appellant contended that tribunal has committed serious error in giving contrary finding. He further contended that Section 73 has provided normal period of limitation which has not been extended by the tribunal. Thus, the tribunal has committed error in recording the finding with regard to limitation.
5. We have heard counsel for the appellant.
6. While consi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
'tour operators'. It is further on record that the appellant has been subjected to periodical audit repeatedly both by the the department as well as statutory audit by CAG. It is further on record that the appellant is a State Government undertaking which can have no intention to deliberately evade payment of service tax. In view of the above, we are of the view that the demand made in the show cause notice has to be restricted to that falling within the normal time limit under section 73. Demands falling beyond this time period is liable to be set aside.
12. In view of the above discussions, the activity undertaken by the appellant is held to be classifiable under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and liable to Service tax. Demand of service tax is sustained within the normal period of limitation and set aside for the period beyond it. The case is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for requantification of the demand falling within the normal time limit.
7. We are in comp
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =