1. LOK PRIYA TRAVELS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF S.T., AHMEDABAD, Final Order No. A/1406/2011-WZB/AHD, dated 12-8-2011 in Appeal No. ST/170/2009 (In favour of revenue)
Held:
5. It was also contended by the appellants that they were not aware that they had to pay service tax. Though it was a fact that they have taken service tax registration, they never disclosed the nature of services rendered nor they furnished ST-3 returns, which was mandatory for a person providing taxable services. The question naturally arises that if they were not aware that they had to pay service tax, why should they take a service tax registration. We are of the opinion that non-furnishing of information or non-filing of returns resulted in non-payment of service tax and this action on the part of appellants tantamounts to deliberate non-compliance with the provisions. In other words, this is only implying suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the extended period, under Section 73(1) is rightly invoked by the Revenue.
6. On the basis of discussions and facts as above, we find that the order of Commissioner (Appeal) is legally correct and justified. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is rejected.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF S.T., AHMEDABAD Vs. RIDDHI SIDDHI GLUCO BIOLS LTD. Final Order No. A/1580/2011-WZB/AHD, dated 26-8-2011 in Appeal No. ST/97/2010, (In favour of assessee)
Held:
4. On going through the Show Cause Notice, I find that the Show Cause Notice clearly says that “During the verification of refund claim, it is found that the assessee has not submitted any proof regarding the authorization of the port in the case of port service provider. Hence, the refund claim relating to port service is not admissible to the assessee.” By taking the ground that the Service Tax was paid under Business Auxiliary Service head and therefore the credit is not admissible, Revenue is bring out a totally new ground which was not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice and therefore the respondent did not get an opportunity to contest the ground. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to consider this ground. In view of the decision taken by this Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vide Order Nos. A/745-746/WZB/AHD/2011, dated 22-3-2011 [2011 (23) S.T.R. 475 (Tri. - Ahmd.)], that port services rendered even without authorization of port, Service Tax credit will be available, respondents are eligible for the Service “tax credit and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be upheld.
5. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and accordingly is rejected.
(Please click here for judgment)
III. A Latest Article:
[Contribution by CA Maneet Pal, and contributor is available on Mobile No. 9810774806 / email-id: maneet@capasricha.com ]
Thin Capitalisation Rules
(Please click here)
IV. Today's Topline News :
-
IT Notification : Competition Commission of India notified as a Body/Authority under section 10(46) (Click for detail)
-
IT Notification : National Skill Development Corporation notified as a Body/Authority under section 10(46) (Click for detail)
-
Policy Circular No. 56 : ‘On-line’ filing of PRC (Click for detail)
-
Circular : Mutual Funds - Format for Reporting of All Transaction in Debt and Money Market Securities (Click for detail)
-
Circular : Mutual Funds - Clarification on Due Diligence Process of Distributors (Click for detail)
New User? 
Subscribe Now