TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in service tax jurisdiction case.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Versus Helios Food Additives Pvt Ltd.,</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Versus Helios Food Additives Pvt Ltd., - 2012 (25) S.T.R. 107 (Tri. - Mumbai), [2013] 59 VST 38 (CESTAT) Issues:Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri over service tax demand.Validity of service tax demand for renting out a car with a driver.Jurisdiction Issue Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II regarding a service tax demand. The dispute arose as the assessee rented out a car with a driver to another company in Mumbai but was issued a notice for service tax demand by the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri. The assessee argued that since their registered office was in Mumbai and the service was provided there, the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and ruled that the Commissioner where the service provider's registered office is located has jurisdiction, regardless of where the service is provided. As both the service and the registered office were in Mumbai, the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri had no jurisdiction. Consequently, the proceedings initiated at Ratnagiri were deemed unsustainable, and the department's appeal was dismissed.Service Tax Demand Issue Analysis:The case involved an assessee who rented out a car with a driver and received payments without discharging the service tax liability. A show-cause notice was issued for the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties. The assessee contended that they were not liable to pay service tax as they provided the vehicle with the driver, unlike a rent-a-cab scheme where the vehicle is provided without a driver. The Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri confirmed the service tax demand, interest, and penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, stating that the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the service was provided in Mumbai where the registered office was located, and the Assistant Commissioner at Ratnagiri had no authority over the activities in Mumbai. Therefore, the service tax demand and penalties imposed were deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.
TaxTMI 