Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (10) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the present case are that during the audit of the records of the appellant for the period 10.09.04 to March, 2008, it was observed that the appellant were earning commission on government business transactions, which constituted the following:- (a) all payments (Central and State Governments) (b) all pension payments (Central and State Governments) (c) all transactions in respect of special schemes like Public Provident Fund (PPF), Senior Citizen Saving Scheme (SCSS). It was observed that the appellant were not discharging service tax liability on the commission amount received from RBI for doing government related business transaction. The appellant had received commission of Rs. 2,14,42,553/- during the period 10.09.2004 to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that the issue is no more res-integra and has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-II vs. State Bank of India-2016 (45) STR 333 (Tri. LB). He further submitted that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank - 2023 (71) G.S.T.L. 225 (S.C.). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ank or a State Bank by the RBI for specified purposes as directed by Government; and the said Section also mandates that such Banks will be agents of RBI. As whether an agent will be eligible for exemption or otherwise is being contested in the appeal, in our view the question does not arise as Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, in Section 65(7), the term assessee has been defined which is reproduced :- "Section 65 (7) - "Assessee" means a person liable to pay the service tax and includes his agent" 7.6 It can be seen from the above reproduced definition, the Finance Act itself acknowledges the fact that the person who is liable to pay service tax includes its agent which would mean in the case in hand that in the absence....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions rendered by various Benches. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal concluded that the services rendered by the Scheduled Banks as statutory agent under Section 45 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and also the other activities of the Scheduled Banks involving statutory functions on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India, were not taxable with regard to the terms of the notification. 6. The opinion of the findings of the CESTAT are in accordance with the judgment of this Court in State of Madras v. Cement Allocation Coordinating Organisations, 1971 (2) SCC 587. The Court had said on that occasion that the acts of the agent are also attributable to the principal. This principle is also embodied in Section 65(7) of the Finance A....