Case Law Details
M/s. Butchaiah & Associates Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
As per the exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, there is a condition which is to be complied with by the service provider and as per the condition, the provider of taxable service has an option not to avail the exemption and such exemption once exercised in a financial year, shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the year. In the present case, we find that this condition has been violated by the appellant and therefore, the Commissioner (A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the refund amount of 24,614/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.02.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Chartered Accountant and is a proprietary concern who is engaged in providing management and financial services after retirement from service. He rendered the services to three clients during the year 2006 but there is no dispute with regard to Service Tax in reference to Syndicate Bank and Bg SE Financial Ltd. The dispute in the present case only relates to Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. (SKPCL) which engaged the appellant as a financial advisor for a specified assignment and the letter of engagement dated 10th April, 2006 states that the appellant shall be paid a professional fees of Rs. 55,000/- per month inclusive of all taxes and duties from the date of joining of his service subject to deduction of tax at source and other statutory deductions as applicable. The appellant resigned from the said engagement on 21st August, 2006 with effect from 30th September, 2006 but he has paid the Service Tax liability as an abundant caution and thereafter, he filed a refund claim for Rs.24,614/- on the ground that total value of the services for the said period was within the threshold limit of exemption of Rs.4,00,000/- vide Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. The original authority rejected the said refund on the ground that the appellant had not opted to avail the said exemption but had chosen to pay Service Tax in the beginning of the year and that the appellant had charged the Service Tax to their clients, collected and paid the same during the year 2006-07 in respect of the two customers and in the case of 3rd customer i.e. M/s SKPCL, they had not separately shown the Service Tax in the bills inasmuch as the total consideration was inclusive of all taxes as per the agreement and in the circumstances, the appellants claimed that they had not collected the Service Tax from the customers, which was not accepted by both the authorities below.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
