2023 (3) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of mobile bills, evaluation of prospective customers and other customer care services for M/s. Aircel Ltd. in their capacity as an authorized agent, for which they received commission from M/s. Aircel Ltd. It appeared to the Department that the activity of the appellant falls under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' in terms of Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. On verification of records, it was noticed that the appellant, though registered with the Department under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, had failed to pay the Service Tax and also file their returns. As per the records, they were liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,25,211/- towards the Service Tax for the period from 10.10.2005 to 30.09.2010. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the commission paid to the appellant is out of the total amount received by the telecommunication service provider, which has been subjected to Service Tax by the telecommunication service provider viz. M/s. Aircel Ltd. That therefore, the demand of Service Tax on the commission paid to the appellant, which is part of the amount on which the telecommunication service provider has already discharged Service Tax, would amount to double taxation. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not raised any bill for any such activities and the appellant received the commission out of the amount received for the post-paid connection for which the Service Tax was already discharged. 4.2 It is also submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confirmed under Business Auxiliary Service is that the telecommunication service provider had already discharged the Service Tax liability on the commission, which is part of the charges collected for the post-paid connections. Be that as it may, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax for the services rendered by them and therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments put forward by the appellant challenging their liability to pay Service Tax. 8. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has also put forward arguments to set aside the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the equal penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act ibid. It is seen that during the relevant period, there w....