TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny of the documents, it was noticed that the appellant had received an amount or Rs. 2,59,51,688/- from M/s SECL during the period October 2005 to December 2010. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 13.04.2011 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 17,90,023/- (including cess) along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2012 confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,90,023/- (including cess) under section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, alongwith interest under Section 75 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 17,90,023/- under section 78 and Rs. 200/- every day under section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order in original, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Raipur, which was dismissed. Against the said impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal which vide Stay Order No. 54880/2014 dated 04.12.2014 had ordered for payment of pre-deposit of the service tax liability along with interest within eight weeks. The appellant then challenged the aforesaid stay order before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and the High Court vide its order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or service is not leviable. In support of his submissions, Learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:- • CCE Vs. Sachin Malhotra reported in 2015 (37) STR 684 (Utt). • RS Travels Vs CCE reported in 2008 (12) STR 27 (T). Upheld by Uttarakhand High Court. • CCE Vs PB Bobde reported in 2015 (40) STR 953 (T). • Ganesh Maniyani Vs CCE Mangalore, 2008 (9) STR 152 (Tri.- Bang) Department withdrew appeal in HC as reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R. 55 (Kar). • CCE, Rohtak versus Miglani Taxi Service rep in 2009 (15) S.T.R 566 (Tri.- Delhi) 3.1 Learned Counsel further submitted that there were also several decisions which had held that in similar cases service tax is payable viz., Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs Vijay Travels [2014 (36) STR 513 (Guj)]; Anil Agnihotri Vs CCE [2018 (10) GSTL 288 (All)]. The Learned Counsel further contended that the major demand is beyond the normal period of 1 year. He stated that as the dispute was on interpretation of taxable service falling under section 65 (105)(0), and in view of aforesaid contrary decisions, it is obvious that there was a dispute on interpretation of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or of the firm M/s Kailash Travelling Agency was Ms. Anita Sakhuja up to 31.03.2010 and thereafter her son Shri Gautam Sakhuja was the proprietor. Therefore, the demand for the period April 2010 to Dec-2010 on the Noticee Smt. Anita Sakhuja is not sustainable. However, the Ld. AR contended that the appellant had continued with the same registration number up to 12/2010 and have been receiving money from M/s SECL. Even the business was running under the name of same proprietorship i.e. M/s Kailash Travelling Agencies, Bilaspur. The appellant had neither intimated the department regarding the cessation of the business under the name M/s Kailash Travelling Agencies nor had they got the registration certificate amended. Therefore, their request on this count cannot be considered and their liability to pay tax on full amount from SECL and others as determined under section 72 ibid will sustain till Dec 2010. 4.2 Ld. AR further also submitted that the extended period had been rightly invoked as the appellant had charged service tax from their customer and had not deposited the same, which proves their intent to evade. He further submitted that the penalty under section 77 of the Finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r tax liability in terms of Section 65(105)(o) of the Finance Act, 1994 stipulates that the taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to any person by a rent-a-cab scheme operator in relation to the renting of a cab. The various terms of these definitions have further been explained in Section 65 of the Act itself. The liability to tax arises when a rent-a-cab operator provides a vehicle to another person on rent and receives consideration. The plain reading of the scope of the tax liability is to this effect only. The nature of arrangement may vary from party to party. In CST v. Vijay Travels [2014(36) S.T.R. 513] it was held that when a person carries on continuous activity of renting of a cab, i.e., letting for the use in case of a maxi cab or motor vehicle, such renting of a vehicle would invite taxable service. The Tribunal in Ghanshyam Gupta [2017(11) STT 130] held that when the assessee rented out a vehicle to a hirer, where the vehicle was stationed at the premises of the hirer and was under his exclusive control, the tax liability under rent-a-cab service would arise. In R.S. Travels [2008 12 S.T.R. 27 (Tri-Del)], the Tribunal held that relying on the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant failed to get the Registration Certificate amended. The appellant continued to receive the consideration from their client SECL in the name of the proprietor firm. In view of the same, we are unable to appreciate or accept this submission of the ld Counsel. 5.3 The Ld. counsel has submitted that extended period is not invokable as there was no suppression. We note that the appellant had taken service tax registration under the rent -a -cab service in 2001- 02. The appellant had filed the returns upto 31.3.2005, and thereafter stopped filing returns. It is recorded in the show cause notice that it was during the examination of the records of SECL that the activity of the appellant came to the knowledge of the department. Thereafter, despite repeated letters, as note above, the appellant did not submit the required information to the department. They also did not appear for personal hearing fixed by the adjudicating authority. It has also been submitted before us that the appellant did not receive the notice for personal hearing fixed for 28.08.2012. This submission cannot be accepted as the other personal hearing notices were received by the appellant at their regis....