TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ake apparent from record in Final Order No. 12783 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No. 10694 of 2019. 2. The Revenue has made the following points:- (a) The Tribunal has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shrinandnagar-IV Co-operative Housing Society Limited -2011 (23) STR 439 treating the facts identical to the present case which is an error apparent on record as the decision of Hon'ble High Court was in a matter pertaining to period prior to 01.07.2010 whereas the present issue pertains to period from October 2010 to March 2014. It has also been pointed out that the Tribunal in their final order held that - "there is no dispute that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciety when it was formed. They became members only when they discharged their dues and therefore, concept of mutuality cannot be applied in the present case. The Tribunal has merely perused registration certificate and advance details to come to conclusion of mutuality at Para 4.5 and 4.6 of the impugned order. (c) Revenue has also pointed out that the Tribunal has observed at para 4.7 that - "We have gone through the page No. 84 to 86 of order-in-original and find that......" Whereas there were only 36 pages in the order-in-original. (d) At para 4.8 of the final order, it is mentioned that - "We have also seen the impugned Show Cause Notice and adjudication orders and find that all the disputed issues raised by the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no suppression of fact or willful mis-statement. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable on the ground of time bar also." The above observations of the Bench could hold only when there was established fact of the prospective buyers being existing member of the Society. Since there is no evidence that mutuality being the primary requirement and condition precedent, the above observations are premature. The Revenue pleaded that it is a clear case of rectification of mistake and relied upon the following decisions :- (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Padmasundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu. (ii) Escorts Limited vs. CCE, Delhi II - 2004 (173) ELT 113 (SC) (iii) Collector of Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24,430/- charged and collected as service tax amount and share capital and membership fee respectively from their customers. Further, they have received Rs. 6,75,125/- at the time of constitution of firm in 1999. He further argues that explanation to Section 65(105) (zzzh) has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the final order dated 22.11.2024. The rulings and case laws cited by learned Consultant were prior to 01.07.2010 and therefore, they were not applicable to the facts of the case. Learned AR also submitted that explanation to Section 65(105) (zzzh) has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the said order dated 22.11.2024. Also, rulings and case laws cited by learned Consultant were relevant to period prior ....