2016 (8) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal, this court has framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in reading the terms `rent' and `hire' as interchangeable in light of the definitions provided in sections 65(59) and 65(72)(o) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the purposes of fastening charge under section 66(3) of Service Tax as provided in Finance Act, 1994?" 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is providing cab service to the customers. Service tax is payable by operators who operate `rent a cab' scheme. The taxing authority demanded tax from the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner, Central excise, Customs & Service Tax, Division I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icle, such that de jure possession continues with owner/provider of service, would not exclude the service from tax net. Thus, respondent cannot escape tax liability on ground that hiring is different from renting as intention of Government is to tax service provider of a service which involves both hiring and renting of a cab for a longer duration. Further, even those persons, natural or juristic, who do not have exclusive control over the vehicle, can be taxed thereto. Respondent was, thus, liable for service tax. However, invocation of extended period requires deliberate act of suppression or mala fide intention, which was not there as service having been recently brought under the tax net, there was ambiguity prevailing in respect of th....