Retrospective service tax amendments cannot revive a stale goods transport agency demand when limitation had already run out.

Retrospective amendments imposing service tax liability on the service recipient for goods transport agency services did not, on these facts, revive a time-barred demand where no proceedings were pending when the amendments came into force. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that retrospective validation and substituted recovery provisions could not sustain a show cause notice issued long after the relevant 1997-1998 period. The demand was therefore barred by limitation, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax for the period 1997-1998, raised by a show cause notice issued in 2008 after the retrospective amendments concerning goods transport agency service, was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the retrospective amendments introducing liability on the service recipient and the later substitution of the recovery provisions. The record showed that no proceedings were pending against the assessee when the retrospective amendment came into force. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision holding that, in such circumstances, the extended demand could not be sustained merely on the basis of the retrospective validation, and the show cause notice issued long after the relevant period was hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---