TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12-13 demanding Rs. 52,12,449 and Rs. 40,375, for 2013-14 demanding Rs. 9,53,055 and for 2014-15 demanding Rs. 28,08,719 which culminated in orders for recovery of these amounts and imposition of penalties of Rs. 59,94,424 under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and Rs. 95,305 and Rs. 2,80,872 under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 in the three adjudication orders that are now impugned in the three appeals disposed off by this common order. 2. The tax liability was held to have devolved on the transfer of consideration, primarily, for legal services rendered by overseas entities in pursuance of litigation arising various agreements entered into by the appellant and fastened on them as 'deemed provider of service' under section 66A of Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the first notice. It was also informed that tax of Rs. 40,375 on charges paid for 'environment related activities' arising from agreement with M/s Agri-Waste Technology was sought for recovery in the same proceeding. 5. Drawing attention to the definition of taxable service, as it evolved, in section 65(105)(zzzzm) of Finance Act, 1994, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that legal firms do not, in the eyes of law, lie within the ambit of description as 'business entity' essential to being provider of the taxable service and that appearance before any court, tribunal or authority stood excluded within the said provision itself. It was also contended that notification no. 45/2011-ST dated 12th September 2011 and serial no. 6 in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clarified that the references to the provisions of Section 66 in Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 or any other Act, for the purpose of levy and collection of Service Tax, shall be construed as references to the provisions of Section 66B." This entire Explanation has now been inserted as a separate provision, Section 66BA. 18. A plain reading of the charging provision, Section 66B of the FA, brings out the following facets : (i) Service Tax is leviable on the value of all services "other than those services specified in the negative list." The negative list of services are set out in Section 66D of the FA, inserted again with effect from 1st July, 2012. Tour operator services is not part of the negative list. (ii) Such service should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices viz., services provided in the taxable territory of India. The legal fiction of treating service rendered outside India to be a service rendered in India cannot be introduced by way of rules. That too would partake the character of an essential legislative function, which cannot be delegated to the Central Government. In fact, such service cannot be brought to tax without amending Section 64(3) of the FA.' in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Indian Association of Tour Operators v. Union of India [2017 (5) GSTL 4 (Del)] to support this contention. 6. Referring to the confirmation of demand on the fee collected by International Court of Arbitration attached to the International Chamber of Commerce, it was contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders, Learned Authorised Representative asserts that the appellant does not dispute the classification of the activity rendered by M/s Eversheds LLP, Singapore and further contends that the rescinding of section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 was followed by the notification of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 as integral to section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 in which rule 3 would come into play. It is also argued that there is no evidence of representation before a court or tribunal as to escape coverage of tax. 9. We have perused some of the invoices furnished by appellants and cannot but notice that these pertain to advise rendered by M/s Eversheds LLP, Singapore. These do not come within the purview of exclusion of charges for represe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise. In these circumstances, the recovery of tax on the charges paid to M/s Eversheds LLP in notices that extended beyond the normal period of limitation stands barred. 11. The appellant had discharged liability on rental of immovable property, along with interest, before issue of show cause notice. We do not find evidence of any of the ingredients that could lead to invoking of the extended period in section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the provisions of section 73 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 precludes further proceedings. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 7,41,600 and of Rs. 40,375 fails to find sustenance in law. 12. With the exclusion of recovery for the extended period, and the consequent liability for the normal period of l....