AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....producer in the state of Haryana under the Seeds Act, 1966. An investigation was conducted in the premises of the respondents on 02.05.2008 and it was found that the respondents are engaged in the activity of Technical Inspection and Certification Service of seeds produced by the seeds producer in the state of Haryana and issuing the certificates. It was found that as per the section 65(105)(zzi) of Finance Act, 1994, the respondents are liable to pay service tax on their activity under category of Technical Inspection and Certification Services. Therefore, the show cause notices were issued to the respondents for the period of 2003-04 to 2007-08. The show cause notices were issued by invoking extended period of limitation and the adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the respondent is a sovereign function and they are registered society under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and working under the Seed Act, 1966 as the certifying agency for seeds. It is further submitted that a clarification was sought by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency, Ahmadabad and it was clarified vide clarification dated 27.09.2006 that the activity undertaken by the respondent is the sovereign function and they are not liable to pay service tax. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be upheld. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, we find that the respondents are registered society under The Societies Act, 1860 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the service provided by the respondents are optional not mandatory. Therefore, these activities have lost characteristic of sovereign function. Further, the similar issue came up before this tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency (Supra) wherein this tribunal has observed as under. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the Seeds Act, 1966 as also the Rules made there under. The said Seeds Act provided for regulating the quality of certain varieties of notified seeds for sale. It is noted that the provisions of the said Act are applicable only for the notified varieties of seeds. Further even in respect of notified varieties of seeds no such certification is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f service tax. 2. The issue has been examined. The Board is of the view that the activities performed by the sovereign/public authorities under the provision of law are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law. The fee collected by them for performing such activities is in the nature of compulsory levy as per the provisions of the relevant statute, and it is deposited into the Government Treasury. Such activity is purely in public interest and it is undertaken as mandatory and statutory function. These are not in the nature of service to any particular individual for any consideration. Therefore, such an activity performed by a sovereign/public authority under the provisions of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he new service included in 2003 budget, namely 'technical inspection and certification services' would cover certification of all types including that of immovable property. Therefore, it is clarified that such services become taxable from the notified date. 11. Keeping in view the said two Circulars as also the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, we have no hesitation in holding that the activities of the appellant are not covered by the said Circular dated 8-12-2006 and are chargeable to Service Tax under the Technical Inspection and Certification Service as enumerated in para 2 above. 12. We have also gone through the case laws submitted by the appellant and we do not consider it necessar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 73 and the remaining amount collected during 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2006 under Section 11D(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is upheld. The interest payable both under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are upheld. Therefore, we hold that the activity undertaken by the respondents are not a sovereign function and the respondents are liable to pay service tax on their activity under category of "Technical Inspection Clarification Services". 7. We also observed that the show cause notice have been issued by the invoking extended period of limitation, the demand' of extended period of limitation is not sustainable as there was no mala-fide intention of the respondents not to pay....