TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. Having heard either side, the delay is condoned. 2. The appellant is a Public Limited Company engaged in Life Insurance and other activities. Responding to the offer by the appellant the 2nd respondent took a Life Insurance Policy on 30.6.2006 with 20 year Level Term Plan. Ext.P1 is the copy of the policy document. Mode of payment of premium is annual. Premium payable is Rs. 4,810/-. First instalment was collected on 22.6.2006. Thereafter, in 2007 and 2008 premiums were remitted and accepted by the appellant at the above rate. Immediately before the payment of the 4th instalment of premium, the appellant issued Ext.P2 notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned senior counsel basing upon the decision reported in All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India [2007] 10 STT 166 (SC), is that the appellant is a service provider and that the 2nd respondent is the service recipient and that it is the liability of the service recipient to pay the service tax and it is the duty of the service provider to collect and remit the tax. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent didn't dispute the liability to pay the service tax. According to him, the agent of the appellant at the time of canvassing policy stated that the premium of Rs. 4810/- is inclusive of service tax and other levies and it is accepting that offer the 2nd respondent took the policy. During 2007 and 2008, the same amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uades us to arrive at a conclusion in favour of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant is also in support of the finding in Ext.P7 that in the given set of facts the premium accepted by the appellant for issuing policy is inclusive of service tax. Before us there is no material to arrive at a contrary finding. Going by the pleadings on record, we find that the appellant has not cared to deny the allegation of the 2nd respondent that the agent of the appellant offered the premium amount including the service tax and other levies. If the contention advanced by the 2nd respondent is not true, the appellant would have filed an affidavit of the agent, but not cared. Result is that pleading of the 2nd respondent that the mode....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made." We are constrained to find so, because the policy document and premium receipts issued for the first three annual premiums do not contain a statement that premium demanded and accepted doesn't include statutory taxes and levies. Since the tax now demanded was then in force, if the premium demanded and payable was excluding the taxes and levies it should have been fairly disclosed to the 2nd respondent, namely by stating taxes extra. It was not only done at the time of issuing policy, but also for the next two years n....