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 on Service Tax liability for commissions paid to foreign agents in Business Auxiliary Service</h1> <h3>Waterbase Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur</h3> Waterbase Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur - [2010] 27 STT 409 (BANG. - CESTAT) Issues:1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit.2. Service Tax liability under 'Business Auxiliary Service'.3. Taxability of commission paid to foreign agents.4. Time limitation for issuing show-cause notice.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a stay petition filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of certain amounts, including demand, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to dispose of the appeal itself due to the narrow compass of the issue. The main issue revolved around the Service Tax liability under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The appellant contended that commissions paid to foreign agents were not taxable before a specific date and that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The appellant also argued that the commission received was for services rendered earlier and provided evidence in the form of Bank Realization Certificates.The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and referred to a Supreme Court decision regarding Service Tax liability on the recipient of services provided by Non-Residents of India. The Court held that prior to a certain date, the reverse charge mechanism applied, meaning the recipient of services from non-residents could not be taxed. However, post that date, Service Tax liability arose. The Tribunal noted the appellant's argument that only the actual amount received should be taxed, not the billed amount, and that there were no findings on this issue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the actual receipt of commission amounts and the question of limitation raised by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to follow the principles of natural justice before reaching a conclusion. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 