TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SOC - VRC (smart card) for vehicle registration by the Road Transport Authorities, Government of Maharashtra. They have entered into an agreement with M/s Rosmerta Technologies Ltd., which provides for the scope of work by the respondent in implementing the SOC - VRC project by way of issuing RC books in the form of Machine Readable Smart Card. The Government of Maharashtra entered into an agreement with M/s Shonkh to implement the smart card project for vehicle registration. M/s Shonkh further assigned this work, in terms of another agreement, to M/s Rosmerta. The respondents were paid Rs. 60/- per card for their service in assisting the issue of smart cards to the applicants. The Revenue entertained a view that the respondents rendered a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the respondent is from M/s Rosmerta as service charges and it cannot be held as a statutory levy. The Revenue contended that the Original Authority wrongly applied the clarification dated 18/12/2006 of the Board. It is further contended that the work of preparing smart card/scanning documents and other miscellaneous work to help another contractor in his business cannot be considered as a sovereign or statutory function. The Revenue also relied on certain decided cases to contest the finding of the Original Authority. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order examined the scope of work undertaken by the respondent and after detailed analysis of the legal provisions came to the correct conclusion. He a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Tri. - Mumbai) and observe that in this case the appellant has issued PAN cards on behalf of the Income Tax department. The Income Tax department is engaged in the sovereign function of levy and collection of income tax. Issue of PAN cards on behalf of the Income Tax department is in relation to such sovereign function. It is not in relation to any business. In view of the above observation, Hon'ble Tribunal held that it is not a taxable service falling within the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. In the instant case, I observe that M/s Rosmerta had availed services of M/s Virgo in this project: that the SOC - VRC Fees are collected at the counter managed by M/s Rosmerta and collect fees of Rs. 350/- for SOC - VRC irrespective of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rformed by the sovereign/public authorities under the provision of any law are clarified as statutory duties and do not constitute taxable service. Thus, the fee or amount collected as per the provisions of the relevant statue for performing such functions is in the nature of compulsory levy and are deposited in the Government account. Such activities are purely in the public interest, undertaken as mandatory and statutory functions. These are not to be treated as services provided for a consideration. Therefore, such activities assigned to and performed by the Sovereign public authorities under the provisions of law and do not constitute taxable services. I observe that the Registration Charges for Smart Card based vehicle Registration car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present case. The allegation is that M/s Shonkh is a service provider to GOM who is a client; M/s Shonkh are providing services to the applicants of smart card on behalf of Government of Maharashtra. Following the similar reasoning the allegation is that the respondent is providing service to M/s Rosmerta who is a client of the respondent and the respondent are providing services to M/s Shonkh and GOM on behalf of their client namely M/s Rosmerta. We find that the whole assertion of revenue is contrived without any appreciation of the facts involved in the case. Admittedly, the smart card for vehicle registration is issued by Government of Maharashtra. The applicant for such smart card cannot be considered as a client to be covered under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Raipur reported in 2016 - TIOL - 2119 - CESTAT - DEL. In the said case, the Tribunal held the taxable service is not exempt merely because the same is provided by Government or local authority. The Tribunal was dealing with an appellant as corporate entity and the amount was collected by them was not deposited to the Government account. We find that in the facts of the present case there is no application for the ratio laid down in the said decision of the Tribunal. 7. We note that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. Smart Chip Limited - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 197 (M.P.) relying on the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Indore Vs. Ankit Consultancy Limited - 2007 ....