2017 (10) TMI 904

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther side that the issue involved in these Writ Petitions  is squarely covered by the decision of the Court,  in the case of (Polyspin Exports Limited Vs. Union of India) reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R.9 (Mad) and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:- "6. On the other hand the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Venkatraman appearing for the Petitioner argued that having regard to the resent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235. (Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India) the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. Nevertheless, for the purpose of narration the following facts are necessary. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... specified in Clause (105) of Section 65 is a. Provided or to be provided by a person who has established a 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 resident, in a country other than India and b. Received by a person who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence, in India. Such service shall, for the purposes of this section, be the taxable service, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply: Provided that where, the recipient of the service is an individual and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipowners Association v. Union of India), the petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Finance Act explanation to Section 65(105) which was in force between 16-6-2005 to 17-4-2006 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rule 1994, in certain with effect from   16-8-2002. 9. The Bombay High Court after carefully analysing the provisions of the Income Tax and Service tax and after following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 276 : 1999 (112) E.L.T. 356 (S.C.) held as follows: "It appears that it is first time when the Act was amended and Section 66A was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006, the Respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10. Therefore, as per the judgment of Bombay High Court service tax cannot be levied prior to 17-4-2006 and the charge was created only after the introduction to Section 66A of the Finance Act. The judgment of the Bombay High Court referred to above was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 1893 of 2009 on 14-12-2009 and the same is reported in 2010 (17) S.T.R. J57. Therefore, having regard to the judgment of the Bombay High Court which was later approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authorities have no power to levy the service tax prior to 17-4-2006 and therefore the impugned show cause notices demanding service tax prior to the period are liable to be quashed. As a matter of fact it has been made clear in the ....