TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax leviability w.e.f. 18-4-2006 (as held in M/s. Indian National Shipowners Association) when the facts of the present case are different than those of M/s. Indian National Shipowners Association ?" Though the language used in the question is somewhat inaccurate the question is whether the respondent-assessee which is a recipient of management service, liable to pay service tax on such services for a period prior to 18-4-2006. 2. Briefly stated facts are as follows : (i) For the purpose of these appeals, we may proceed on the footing that the respondent-assessee receives Management Consultant service by service provider stationed outside India. Though this aspect is also strongly disputed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... National Shipowners Association (supra) and in case of Unitech Ltd. (supra) were different. He submitted that Bombay High Court decision was based on the facts where even the service was not received in India; whereas in the present case, the management consultant service was received in India. 5. He relied upon provisions contained in Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to contend that in the present case department has correctly demanded service tax from the respondent. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Soparkar, appearing for the respondent opposed the appeal contending that till 18-4-2006 when Section 66A was introduced, there was no provision by virtue of which the service tax can be levied fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India, and (b) received by a person (hereinafter referred to as the recipient) who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence, in India, such service shall, for the purpose of this section, be the taxable service, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipients had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply: Provided that where the recipients of the service is an individual and such service received by him is otherwise than for the purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t address or, as the case may he, usual place of residence, in India;" 13. This Rule for the period prior to 18-4-2006 and; in particular in absence of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra). Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Laghu Udyog Bharti (supra), Bombay High Court was of the opinion that before enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 there was no authority vested by law in the respondent to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India but who receives services outside India. It was observed that law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Laghu Udyog Bharti (supra) is squarely appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appears that a similar provision in the rules was made applicable by the Government in relation to the Clearing Agents by making customers of the Clearing Agent liable for levy of the service tax. That question has been decided by the Supreme Court by its judgment in the case of Lagu Udyog Bharati (supra) and the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the imposition of the service tax is on the persons rendering the services and by making a provision in the Rules, levy of tax cannot be shifted to the recipients of the services and the rule framed which brought about this situation has been declared by the Supreme Court to be invalid. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgement in Laghu Udyog (supra) is squarely applicable to....