TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant were paying service tax under 'rent a cab service' and 'Tour operator service' regularly. They were under bonafide belief that, since hiring the vehicle is different from rent a cab service the same is not liable for service tax. 2.1 He submits that at the most the hiring of the vehicle to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) is falling under 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service'. However, since the demand was not made under that head service tax demand is not sustainable. 2.2 He further submits that the issue involved in the present case was not free from doubt that whether the hiring of buses should fall under the taxable service of rent a cab se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... After hearing both the sides and going through facts of the case, we are of the view that this appeal can be disposed of only on the limitation. We find that there is no dispute that the issue involved interpretation of law regarding taxability of the service of hiring of buses. On this issue various cases have been decided and though finally it was held that the hiring of the buses also falls under 'rent a cab service' but considering the bonafide of the assessee the demand is set aside on the ground of time barred. This has been considered in the case of Vijay Travels (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court while dealing with the demand for the longer period upheld the order of the Tribunal to the extent the demand was set aside o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/99, it was exempted from tax upto 31st March, 2000. Section 66(3) of the Finance Act which is the charging Section, brought the same under the tax net. 25.2 Initially, registration and owning of minimum particular numbers of vehicles was a must and later on, amendments in the law were brought. 25.3 Merely because the petitioner got himself registered on 23-3-2004 and by way of abundant caution incorporated and accepted its liability in one of the terms of agreement, as and when arises, that ipso facto cannot be adjudged as his deliberate act of non-payment of tax alleging suppression and mala fide intention. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has been operating in the field from the year 1997. Every year by virtue of tender ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we have no doubt in our mind that the services provided by the appellant to M/s. Welspun who have used this service undisputedly in relation to their business or commerce and will fall under support services of business or commerce. Therefore, the demand under business support service was rightly invoked by the revenue. As regard the limitation, since there was no ambiguity as regard taxability of appellant service under the head of Business Support Service, non- payment of Service Tax without informing to the department is clearly under suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, therefore, the demand for extended period is rightly invoked by the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority. 10. As per our above discus....