TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual Matrix 2. The appellant, a 100% EOU registered under the Software Technology Park of India, was engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service. During audit, it was noticed that, during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07, the appellant had subcontracted part of its activities, namely data capturing and data processing of books and journals, to M/s Apex Abstracting & Editing Services (P) Ltd. ("M/s Apex"), its wholly owned subsidiary. M/s Apex received data processing charges from the appellant for the said work. As the activities undertaken by M/s Apex appeared classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service, and in view of the Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide C.P. Nos. 58 & 59 of 2007 dated 20.04.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Commissioner to scrutinize records. Therefore Audit conducted before 05.12.2014 is illegal. C. No service provider-client relationship Upon sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation, M/s Apex merged with the appellant with effect from 01.05.2006. The sanction relates back to the appointed date, and the transferor and transferee cease to be separate legal entities from that date. Consequently, any inter se activity constitutes service to self and is not taxable. This principle is affirmed in ITC Hotels Ltd., Skol Breweries, Usha International Ltd., Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Precot Mills, and BSNL Cellular Mobile Services. Accordingly, during the disputed period, no service provider-client relationship existed and no ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has stated that the subcontracted activity merits classification under Business Support Service (BSS), which became taxable only from 01.05.2006. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in C.P. No. 58659/2007 dated 20.04.2007, ordered that the scheme would take effect only upon fulfilment of the conditions in Clause 19, including approvals, sanctions and filing of the High Court's order with the Registrar of Companies, which could be only after 20.04.2007. Thus, the amalgamation could become effective only after 20.04.2007. Accordingly, the contention that no service provider-client relationship existed from 01.05.2006 is untenable. B. As regards classification, the exclusion of Information Technology service from Business Auxilia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Scheme of Amalgamation, from the appointed date, the transferor and transferee cease to be separate legal entities and any inter se activity constitutes service to self and is not taxable. D) Data capturing and data processing of books and journals, which constitute Information Technology Services (IT Services), specifically excluded from Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) during the relevant period. E) No tax is leviable on Business Support Service, prior to 01.05.2006 from when it became taxable. F) When service tax itself is not payable, no penalty survives. We discuss the issues sequentially. 5. As the Appellant has raised the plea of limitation for the entire demand, it merits examination at the threshold. Limita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai [FINAL ORDER NO. 40706/2026, Dated: 09.06.2026 / 2026 (6) TMI 530 - CESTAT CHENNAI] 5.1 We find that the SCN dated 24.07.2009 pertains to the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2007. Under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the normal period for issuing a show cause notice was one year up to 27.05.2012. It was enhanced to eighteen months with effect from 28.05.2012. During the relevant period, ST-3 returns under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 were required to be filed half-yearly-by 25 October for April-September and by 25 April for October-March. For the period ending 31.03.2007, the ST-3 Return was to be filed on the 25th of April 2007. Hence the SCN has been clearly issued after a period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he context of Central Excise but also found to be relevant to Service Tax is reproduced below: It is the view that assessment should be the primary function of the Central Excise Officers. Self- assessment on the part of the taxpayer is only a facility and cannot and must not be treated as a dilution of the statutory responsibility of the Central Excise Officers in ensuring correctness of duty payment. No doubt, audit and anti-evasion have their roles to play, but assessment or confirmation of assessment should remain the primary responsibility of the Central Excise Officers. 22. Therefore, to say that had the audit not been conducted, the incorrect availment of CENVAT credit would not have come to light is neither legally....