TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment's, manpower, electricity connection and selling and billing of CNG gas, collection of bills etc.. They are receiving Service Charges from M/s Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. fixed at the rate of per Kg. CNG gas sold in a month subject to a minimum amount of CNG Gas to be sold by them as entered into contract with M/s Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. On further verification of Bank Statement & ST-3 returns, it was noticed that there was huge difference in taxable value shown in ST-3 returns and amount of service charge received in Bank account. The Appellants submits the reason of difference that the difference is due to reimbursement of electricity charges. A show cause notice was issued for the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 demanding service tax on reimbursemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/2021. 2.1 He also submits that extended period of limitation invoked by the Adjudicating authority in the present case is unlawful and bad in law. Appellant regularly filed ST-3 returns. The assessing officers has failed to follow its duty casted by CBEC Circular No. 113/7/2009-ST dated 23.04.2009. Further, there is decision in favour of appellant in case of VV Brothers (Supra) and also in UOI Vs International Consultant and Technocrats (supra), the appellant is under bona fide belief that return filed in Form ST-3 is correct. Department also conducted the Audit for the period April 2006 to March 2010 and accepted the ST-3 returns. Therefore, there is no fraud, no mis-statement, no suppression of facts, hence extended period not invoka....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28.10.2021 held that 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that this issue involving identically placed service provider and the same service recipient M/s. Gujarat Gas Company Limited under the identical contract has been decided by this Tribunal in the case of V V Brothers (Supra) wherein this Tribunal has passed the following order:- "This appeal has been filed by M/s VV Brothers against order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand of Service Tax. 2. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant pointed out that they are engaged in providing services to M/s Gujarat Gas. They have entered into an agreement with Gujarat Gas in terms of wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L 401 (SC). (2) Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. of ST, Chennai 2008 (9) STR 483 (Tri-Chennai) (3) Bizsolindia Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-iii 2016 (43) STR 622 (TriMum.) (4) Dream Loanz vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Coimbatore 2017(6) GSTL 443 (Tri Chennai) (5) AdhikrutJabti Evam Vasuli vs. CCE (Indore) 2017 (6) GSTL 529 (Tri- Delhi) 3. Learned Authorised Representative relied on the impugned order. He argued that in the case of decision of larger bench in the case of Sri Bhagwathy Traders 2011 (24) S.T.R. 290 (Tri-LB) which has been held that only when the amount is spent in the capacity of pure agent, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Tribunal), Hotel Lake view Ashok vs. CGST 2018 TIOL 2195 CESTAT-Mad and S.B. Developers Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2018 TIOL 1866 CESTAT-Del., it was held that electricity charges reimbursed to the service provider by the service recipient are not includable in gross value of renting of immovable property service. We find that the said principle is equally applicable in the instant case. The said principle has also been pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L 401 (SC). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed." 4.1 From the above decision of this Tribunal, it can be seen that the electricity charges which is reimbursed on actual basis in terms of the contract i....