Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S Lakshminarayana Mining Co on 20 April, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
:N THE HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA AT B.fxNGALOR.E§*--._
DATED THIS THE 20?" DAY OF APRIL
PRESENT % ' ' V'
THE HOEWBLE MR. 3usT:c§é%'jN§j;<u_mR;< U: V:
Am}. _ b' A. >' .
THE HON'BLE MR.JusTIC'é:RAv1
CEA.§\l:CL 44;"< 3"1§ "2~{ji:rj"
BETWEEN:
Commissioner--wr§f4¢Sér.viCe Tax: _ _
Service Tax Com-si1_issi'(3r1e%'a'i§;9, " 7'
No. 16, S._P..TVC'crri'pE<e;gVV , ' *
Lalbagh,'R0ad"~I;7_ _ _
Bangalore -: 56.0 ' - .-./\PD€"ant
{By Srig N.R'.L._B%hasxka_ra,a AV£*.5e:1:'i"Qr EV";tanding Counsei)
"M./Vs T.L'a*§<,$'i ii aréy. *3 n a M i ni n
Campanv '
Qfid 93,0! 3?}; _N4j€2w No. 100
jSann?{ifji'RVoa'd,Basavangudi
':33An;gaIer.§*~ 560 004 Resgondent
A K15. Ravéshankasj, Advscate)
>§<>%<>k
flw~
F»)
This CEA flied under sectioriV4'w3§<3_. oi' 'CehVtr~ai.o:V"
Excise Act, 1944 arising out 'of"-Qrder'-dated i'Z5,iQ9;(2§®_&39
passed in Fina! Order N05 11'~4§',5.2Q09,'*--.in*-A.ppéaE No.
ST,/620/2008, praying to decide _t_hVe..su-b\stan'tia.i_question of
iaw sated therein, set.'as_ide.V*the*._CESTAT, South Zone
Bench, Bangaiore in Fin-air" _0i"dEi§_'VNG-{*vi11i4;9/2009 dated
25/09/2009, in Appeal No .ST,'62'O/2QQ'8,n_'aVhd_ restore the
order in originai No. 34/Ci8r--det'ed"Z158/2QQ'8vv,"'
This _.i'orv"'jh'e'a'rihg this day,
RAVIMALHW#THjgfhadethefdhwmhgé
"§"nejeMéNr"
This'a'p:oeaVi'is~ i3"yt'Ati1e:""'r.e"vVenue being aggrieved by the
order_o'f"the Tri"i;uV_h'a'i holding that the assesses are not
V.A'~._!iabi~eito .ser_vEce tax under the category of GTA (Goods
Tra_ns--p_o rt" ".
i' A. V"'.The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in
._jj_t:h"e iibuisiness of exporting Iron ore and are receiving
".._us'ervice from various Goods Transport Operators. The
service so rendered are taxabie under the category of
Transport of Goods by Road Service covered under Section
65 (S83) and 658.05) (zap) of the Finance Act, 1994 and
V5
§
have taken service tax registration under the above
mentioned category.
3. Oh gathering inteiiigence and on thee» M
records it was reveaied that the assessee chad oaid
service tax to the tune of Rs.92,i"i'1.,§'?:,"-
service received during the V to
28'-2~.20{).7§ Hence, a shoecaosehiojtiicefiraséi'issued: as to
why the service tax amoehtihlgii should not
be recovered paid by the
assesseet' against the said
demand {al'o'hgiV.ii'i}Vi.tVh and penalty. The
assessee1z'soti«i%nitteVc!'V:"hisv«tV§u:ii}tL..' 'The assessing authority
came to the concviusion that'"the service provider is a Goods
Q"'iitganst:o'rt:,.\~-is/AgencyH'a'hd°not mereiy a truck owner or
opeVtatot,::"'TVhat' {Seeds Transport Agency themselves can be
the"o_§a?n€?S."ef'i:the Truck, Therefore, the plea at' the
h"'~.-~,2'a'ssesseeseas rejected and Et was conciudeci that the
services received by the assessee is a taxabie service.
it"---'.é}3\_c_cordingiy, the demand was confirmed aiohg with
e'5:'""'
Empesétéon ef ieterest and penafty. Aggneved by tne..:se:§e..:e';"~VV
the aesessee preferred an appeal te the
Tribunal heid that from the deftnztsoneetete"ta&~<la--11';~;.:se the
ciarification made by the Finance l<tinii:§te:'V
Speech the Tax has been wree_git€V_pelie'
since they are not iieble tax.
Accordingly, they held liable to
pay service ta><:.V4%,{§"1:7l__er etl' Transport
Agency. has flied the
present avpgVea.LV.V:.,__ 5;' . .. . .
4. to consider the
following subetantial':que_stit$ns of law:--
' \,:wgAethet"t't't'eV order of the CESTAT, based
on the speech of the Hen'bie
Minister made while introducing
"E-tt«eAFinance Bil}, 2004 and not as per the
statutory provisions pf Eaw was right in
holding that the Respondents were not
iiabie te pay Serviee Tax under the categery ef "Geode Transport Agency"? ~.",
ii) Whether the order of the CESTAT right in haéding that the Fiespor3;i'é~n:s:' "~: I"- were not Eiab¥e to Servicejax urn:i'e:vr fI:_%xé"'~.. = category of "Goods Trz;:§"ss;:'_<§ rtf1v cantrary to the statutory abr_o{z'§.sAicnsp.¢:_f.A!ax«:= V' i.e., Section (:2p)_, V 65(5Gb), Rufe 2(1)(;:%j'm Qf th e «-Sévnrvifiie Tax Rules, *1 994 .'L'%&LM'%'Né::fi%§a:sen mo. 35/2004 ST 'dated w.e.f.
01,915 .._anc!;_' 1'fifV'1:ér%éi3\,r:: fiside the V Otdér 4Er':§C:)_;figir'f£a_£ 2:..og.2%ow Th6_!,'EfQ;f év.§Vfié'51£}'_UeSt:i0fi H"t£'Ji._aF§§SeS for consideratian in this agipeai 'is. Vaé. 'the assessees are Eiabie to pay servEcé"'--t:a>< <§x* fi{jt»-- the category of Goods Transport Ageri'c~,{:? ».
§'c€és*:'ii<:;té,.:i issue came up for ccnsideration before the Di%§:s;o%¢ Eéfich of this Ceurt in CEA N912:/2009 and H"": '::§§'::rze;tee:iV"*'}'r1atte;*s. This cwrt by the eréer dated 2_3#=34'23'i1 came t9 the <:@r;::¥us%9r3 that service tax is paid 4"