2026-VIL-790-CESTAT-CHE-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax liability for services received from goods transport operators – Appellant received services from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998 - Department issued a notice proposing to demand service tax on the value of these taxable services. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that there was no requirement to file returns or pay tax during the relevant time period. Consequent to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2003, the appellant filed a return and paid the service tax under protest. The Department then issued another SCN demanding the service tax and interest/penalties - Whether the confirmation of the service tax demand along with interest and penalties on the appellant is legally tenable – HELD - The demand of service tax is legally valid as the Supreme Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Cements case had upheld the amendments made by the Finance Act 2000 and 2003 which retrospectively made the service recipients liable to pay service tax on the services received from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998 – Further, since the Service Tax was payable along with the return on or before 13- 11-2003, therefore, the period of one year from the relevant date was from 13-11-2003 to 12-11-2004, and thus the second SCN Notice itself was within the normal period of limitation - However, there is merit in the appellant's contention that interest should not be levied as the return was filed within the 6-month period prescribed under Rule 7A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the levy of interest is set aside - The appeal is partly allowed, with the demand of service tax upheld but the levy of interest set aside

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page