TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed by two other notices dated 26th March 2014 for 2012-13 and dated 24th December 2014 for 2013-14 for failure to discharge liability of Rs. 21,086 and Rs. 19,208 on receipts of Rs.1,70,600 and Rs. 1,55,405 respectively. 2. In the impugned order Order-in-order no. 16-18/STC-IV/MRRR/16-17 dated 29th April 2016, Commissioner of Service Tax-IV, Mumbai, disposed off all three notices, confirmed demand of Rs. 5,46,673 under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with applicable interest under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, and imposed penalty of like amount under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 while limiting confirmation in the second notice to Rs. 12,540 under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with applicable interest under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 750 under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and confirming the entire Rs. 19,208 under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with applicable interest under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 1000 under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 in the third notice. Thus, the impugned order dropped demand of Rs. 5,50,78,372 for 2008-09 to 2011-12 and Rs. 8546 for 2012-13. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Basing his submissions on the grounds of appeal, Learned Authorized Representative argued that the adjudicating authority has failed to ascertain the correctness of the claim that the amounts excluded from computation represented the actuals insofar as 'water charges' and 'electricity expenses' are concerned. 6. On collections made towards 'corpus fund for club house' and 'corpus fund for complex and apex body', the appellant contends that the adjudicating authority had accepted the claims of lesser receipt of Rs. 5,42,80,000 and 4,34,24,000, against Rs. 21,53,40,325 and Rs. 17,23,25,200 incorporated in the notice, to limit taxability to Rs. 1,44,062 representing net assessable value after deduction of tax from Rs. 1,61,868 being the amount expended from unutilized balance of Rs. 9,75,42,132 recorded in profit and loss account for 2014-15. Likewise, on 'other advances and deposits', the claim of assessee of lesser collection of Rs. 8,50,024 against Rs. 19,43,624 was accepted and valuation for liability limited to Rs. 7,58,557 to restrict tax to Rs. 91,467 for 2008-09 to 2011-12 and to levy of Rs. 12,540 on Rs. 1,01,460 after excluding the tax component from total deposit of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be of assistance to the appellant as it settled a dispute in which the provider, acknowledged as a public authority, undertook activities that had nothing to do with its statutory assignment. Per contra, the respondent herein was statutorily bound to discharge obligations to public authorities undertaking municipal and utility functions and, therefore, any collection towards such expenses is compensation for payments for such services. 10. A contention in the grounds of appeal that the amendments to section 65(105) and section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 16th June 2005 for incorporating 'to be provided' to supplement 'provided' has the effect of intendment to tax 'advances' is specious, to say the least, and is based on less than adequate understanding of legislative intent. To read the expression 'provided' or 'to be provided' sans 'taxable service' is to inverse 'cart' and 'horse' juxtaposition; it is necessary to demonstrate that an activity fitting within 'taxable service' has or will occur before attributing any payment thereof as consideration liable to levy. Mere compilation of statutory provisions is no substitute for such determination to be placed before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no. D 23523 of 2008]. We take notice that this was followed by the Tribunal in Godfrey Philips India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I [2018 (10) GSTL 467 (Tri-Mumbai)]. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has, in Idea Cellular Ltd v. Union of India [2017 (4) GSTL 4 (P&H)], upon taking note of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Idea Mobile Communications Ltd v. Commissioner [2011 (23) STR 433], held that '2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the petitioner was liable to pay Service Tax on the value of SIM cards sold to the subscribers or not. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the petitioner's case reported in 2011 (23) STR 433 (SC) and, therefore, held that the petitioner was liable to pay Service Tax. The Tribunal, however, held that the extended period of limitation is not invocable for the reason stated therein and consequently the demand for the extended period of limitation was set aside and the penalties were also set aside. The appeal was disposed of in the following terms:- "As the respondent has not collected any service tax from the sim card subscribers, in that circumst....