TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the original authority and the appeal is only against demand confirmed under Business Support Service. 3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Counsel Shri Anjuman Ghulatia appeared and argued the matter. He reiterated the grounds of appeal and explained the facts relating to the auctioneering service as well as Business Support Service. 4. The appellants are cooperative society dealing with various commodities mainly cotton, groundnut and turmeric. They undertake the following activities:- a) Arranging for and undertaking of purchase, storing, processing and marketing of the agricultural and other produce or products of its Members to the best advantage and for undertaking distribution of commodities; b) Providing marketing facilities such as auction yards, drying facilities and warehousing and produce pledge loans and thereby facilitating the farmer members to sell their produces at a remunerative price in a transparent manner by auction. c) Dealing in commodities such as cotton, maize, oil seeds and turmeric d) Determining the price of the goods in the auction conducted where the members bring their produces facilitating auctioning of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Bench in the above case and held that the activity would not fall under auctioneering service. 6. With respect to the second issue of demand under Business Support Service confirmed in both appeals, ld. Counsel explained that the activities done by the appellant is only lending of loans to their members to meet sudden expenses. The loan is given against pledging of jewels. In this connection, to process the application before sanction of the loan, the purity of jewels is checked and the value is arrived at on the appraisal done. This activity of lending is held by the department to be Business Support Service. The appellant is not supporting any business entity. The confirmation of demand under this head in both the appeals is erroneous as the activity does not fall under the definition of Business Support Service. The very same issue was also considered in the above cited decision of Attur Agricultural Producers Co-op Marketing Society and the Tribunal held that the activity would not fall under Business Support Service. 7. In ST/40809/2013, apart from the demand under Auctioneering Service and Business Support Service, the Show Cause Notice has raised demand under Goods T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the due process, the Ld. Commissioner, vide the impugned order confirmed the demands along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also ordered collection of appropriate late fee under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules 1994 read with Section 90 of Finance Act, 1994. However, he did not impose any penalty under Section 76 of the Act. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits at the outset that the nature of their activity needs to be examined. "Auctioneer's Service", was introduced as a taxable service w.e.f. 1.5.2006 for people who auction the property. In their case, they are not auctioning any property. They are a Co-operative Marketing Society formed with the objective of facilitating marketing of agricultural produce of their 3 members at an remunerative price through a process of tenders. Therefore there was no auction at all. He draws the attention of the Bench to para-3 of the impugned order which narrates the nature of their activities as follows : (a) the Attur Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., S.No.672 is registered as a Co-operative Society under the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d lot wise for the convenience of the farmers, (k) after noticing the price of the goods declared in the notice board, if the farmer is satisfied, he may sell the goods, otherwise he may store the goods for the next auction; (l) after getting concurrence from the farmers for the price offered by the traders to the said lot the goods are sold to the highest bidder for the said produce. (m) on completion of sale, the sale proceeds are disbursed to the members immediately by the society, after deducting service charges @ 2% in respect of cotton, maize and oil seeds and 2.5% for turmeric, as "marketing service charges from Riots" for the value of the produces sold in secret tender auction and from the merchants 1% service charges is collected. xxx xxxx xxx 6. As far as the demand with respect to the Auctioneer's Service is concerned, he would assert that the charge is only on auctioning service and not on tendering service. What they are rendering is facilitation of tenders for sale of the products of their members through sealed tenders. Therefore, the term "auctioneer's service" does not apply to their activity at all. 7. As far as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifting and delivering the goods to the ration shops under the Public Distribution System. They were carrying goods in the nature of wheat, rice, pulses, sugar etc. An amendment by Notification No. 4/2010 dated 27.2.2010 was brought forth in Notification No. 33/2004 dated 3.12.2004 whereby the transportation of foods grains or pulses was also exempted from levy of service tax. This amendment is by way of substitution. The appellant has also argued that during the relevant period when GTA services was introduced (w.e.f 1.1.2005), the understanding was that when individual truck owners are engaged the activity would not fall under definition of GTA and that there was no liability to pay service tax. He has also relied upon the Budget speech of the then Finance Minister while introducing the Bill wherein it was said, "there is no intention to levy service tax on truck owners or truck operators". There were several litigations on this issue and the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Narayan Mining Co. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2009 (16) STR 69 (Tri. Bang.) held the issue in favour of assessee and it was upheld by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as reported in 2012 926) ....