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>Indian Army service not rent-a-cab for Service Tax. Tribunal upholds exemption, rejects penalties.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-II Versus SAPAN MEHROTRA</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-II Versus SAPAN MEHROTRA - 2012 (26) S.T.R. 219 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Interpretation of service provided to Indian Army as rent-a-cab service under Section 65(105)(o) for Service Tax liability. Applicability of penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. for small service providers.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding whether the service provided by the Respondent to the Indian Army constituted a rent-a-cab service under Section 65(105)(o) for Service Tax liability. The Respondent supplied various means of transportation to the Army based on a contract with agreed-upon rates. The department argued that this service fell under the definition of rent-a-cab service and demanded Service Tax along with penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Upon adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for Service Tax and imposed penalties on the Respondent. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, relying on a previous Tribunal case and determining that the service provided did not fall under the rent-a-cab service category. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal against this decision.The ld. SDR representing the Revenue contended that the services provided by the Respondent were covered under rent-a-cab services due to the long-term nature of the contract with the Army. Reference was made to a decision by the Madras High Court to support this argument. The Respondent, on the other hand, supported the Commissioner (Appeals) arguments and highlighted eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. for small service providers.The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and concluded that the service provided by the Respondent was similar to that of ordinary taxi-operators on the street, not falling under the rent-a-cab scheme for taxation. Despite the long-term agreement on rates, each vehicle was not placed at the disposal of the Army for a fixed duration, leading to the Tribunal agreeing with the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the Respondent.This comprehensive analysis addressed the key issues of interpreting the service provided to the Indian Army, the applicability of penalties under the Finance Act, and the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. The judgment clarified the tax liability of the Respondent and provided a detailed explanation of the Tribunal's decision in dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 