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>Service tax on CRS incentives upheld with limitations, no penalty imposed</h1> <h3>M/s. Ashani Corporation Versus C.S.T. -Service Tax-Ahmedabad</h3> M/s. Ashani Corporation Versus C.S.T. -Service Tax-Ahmedabad - TMI Issues:1. Liability to pay service tax on consideration received from Gallileo & Amadus for using their platform for booking air tickets.2. Whether the demand is time-barred.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability to pay service tax on consideration received from Gallileo & Amadus for using their platform for booking air tickets:The appellant argued that there was confusion regarding the taxability of the service due to a circular issued by the board in 2016. The appellant's representative cited judgments in support of the confusion regarding the use of the CRS system. The Revenue representative contended that the service provided by the appellant is taxable. The Tribunal found that there was confusion about the classification and taxability of the service, citing a previous judgment where demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal referred to the D-pauls case, emphasizing that the service provided by the appellant falls under Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal concluded that service tax is leviable on the amount received by the appellant from CRS companies under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. However, due to the confusion and uncertainty regarding the levy of service tax on incentives received, the demand was restricted to the normal period limitation, and no penalty was imposed on the appellant.Issue 2: Whether the demand is time-barred:The Tribunal found that due to the confusion surrounding the taxability of the service, the demand for the extended period was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside on the grounds of limitation, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the demand for the extended period was not sustainable due to the confusion regarding the taxability of the service provided by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the classification of the service under Business Auxiliary Service and restricted the demand to the normal period limitation, with no penalty imposed on the appellant.
TaxTMI 