TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice Tax of Rs. 1,53,75,352/- along with interest and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the of the present case are that the appellant is a Nationalized Bank having its registered office in Chandigarh and was registered with the Service Tax department for providing taxable services in the category of Banking and Financial Services, Transportation of goods by road and Renting of immovable property dated 16.04.2009 as defined under Section 65(105)(zzk) 65(105) (zzp), 65(105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. That the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter "RBI") through a network of its public Accounts Departments and branches of other Agency Banks (appointed under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand of Rs. 1,53,75,352/- under "Business Auxiliary Service" for the period 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2011. The appellant filed its detailed reply to the show cause notice and after following due process, the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order confirmed the demand along with interest and equal penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perusal of the material on record. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the binding judicial precedents on identical issue. She further submits that the service provided for Discharge of Sovereign or Statutory functions of the State is outside the purvie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry Services" and thus rendering the entire demand not sustainable. She also submitted that extended period has wrongly been invoked for the present case as the issue relates to interpretation and all the transactions were recorded in the books of account of the appellant; no suppression has been made by the appellant. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the main services rendered by the appellant to the RBI are exempt from service tax vide notification No. 22/2006-ST dated 13.04.2006. Further, we find that this issue is no more res integra and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 of Notification 22/2006-ST, RBI would be liable to pay service tax as also banks which are appointed by RBI as agent und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any merits in the said submission made by the learned D.R. inasmuch as that the definition of assessee in the Finance Act in Section 65(7) clearly states that assessee means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent In the case in hand RBI a person liable to pay tax as an assessee but for exemption, will include their agents viz. Banks appointed under Section 45 of RBI Act, to execute functions of RBI. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgement of the Apex Court as cited by learned A.R. may not be applicable in the facts of this case. In our view the reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (A.R.) in the case of Uttam Industries (supra) may also not carry the case of revenue any further as facts were totally different, than....