TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the franchise service and payment therefore, was made prior to 01.07.2003, Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period post 01.07.2003. The second issue whether the appellant's demand under commission service is time barred when the service of commission provided by giving table space to the finance company for sale of their finance product. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the case of franchise service since the contract as well as the payment was made prior to levy of service tax on 01.07.2003. The service tax is not chargeable even if the part of service was involved for the period post 01.07.2003. As regard the demand on Business Auxiliary Service under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II- 2019 (27) GSTL 363 (T) 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that on the first issue whether the appellant is liable to pay the service tax on franchise service for the period post its implementation i.e 01.07.2003. The fact which is not under dispute is that the appellant have entered into a contract of franchise agreement before 01.07.2003. and the payment of such contract was also made at the time of entering into the contract. In this fact the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has decided the matter holding that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a very odd situation with the assessee and he has to suffer in his business and has to face the breach of contract. 32. In that view of the matter when we have to interpret the taxing statute, we have to interpret Article 265 and the possibility of interpretation should not be avoided to be very impracticable for either of the side. 33. In that view of the matter, we make it clear that any payment of contract which are entered after 1-7-2003 will invite Service Tax and any contract which is concluded prior to 1-7-2003 will not invite imposition of Service Tax. 34. In that view of the matter, the issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. 35. Regarding the second issue, any contract of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant for such activity prior to 1-7-2010 cannot be subject to levy of service tax even though the lease may extend after the period 1-7-2010. If the appellant received any amount for such lease after 1-7-2010 it may be taxable. However, in the present case, there is no allegation that the appellant has received any rent/consideration after 1-7-2010. This being so, the demand cannot sustain. 8. The issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (supra). The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal and referred the same in the order, which is reproduced as under :- "18. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property' service inter alia levy of service tax on renting of vacant land where there is an agreement between lessor and lessee for undertaking construction of building or structure on such land for furtherance of business or commerce during the tenure of the lease. The C.B.E. & C. Board Circular No. 334/2010-TRU, dated 26-2-2010 (in paragraph 3) explains the purpose of the amendments to Section 65(105)(zzzz). Accordingly, the Circular explains that amendments are being made in the definition of this taxable service to provide that renting of vacant land where there is an agreement or contract between the lessor and lessee for undertaking construction of buildings or structures on such land for furtherance of business or commerce during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only from 1-7-2010, and not so, earlier to this date." 20. In our opinion the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid aspect of the matter are legally justified and we see no good reason to take any different view in the matter. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the question of law as raised by means of the present Excise appeal is answered against the department. 22. The Excise appeal is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged." 9. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Tuticorin Port Trust v. CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli reported in 2018 (10) TMI 477 CESTAT, Chennai. Following the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the demand cannot sustain. ....