Page 158 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

244 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
that there were conflicting decisions on the issue, which is interpretation of clas-
sification. The issue is also still not attained finality as the matter is pending in
the apex court in the case of Vijay travels reported as 2015 (38) S.T.R. J425 (S.C.),
therefore the Show Cause Notice issued on 16-4-2009 for the period January, 2003
- March, 2008 is time barred, as regard demand of Service Tax under the category
of business support service he submits that the activity of the appellant is to run
and maintain buses owned by M/s. Welspun based on the operation and
maintenance contract/agreement with M/s. Welspun. The buses were used for
transporting company employees similarly the appellant provided the drivers
and cleaners for all the buses as per requirement of Welspun and also regularly
maintained the company owned buses. The aforesaid activity has been classified
under the Support Service of Business or Commerce also known as Business
Support Service. He submits that the appellant have not charged the Service Tax
from their service recipient M/s. Welspun. He submits that it has been consist-
ently held by the Hon’ble Tribunal that such activities are not covered under the
definition of Business Support Service. As per the definition of business support
service in Section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. The inclusion of various
services does not cover the services provided by the appellant or even the activi-
ty of the appellant is not identical the services mentioned in the definition, there-
fore, the activity of the appellants does not fall under business support service.
He also submits that where two or more words susceptible of analogues meaning
or club together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take,
as it were, their color from and are qualified and each other, the meaning of the
general area being restricted to a sense analogues to that of the less general. He
submitted that as per the various submissions mentioned in the definition of
business support service none of the service due its commission and the con-
sumption to the personal. Therefore, the services in the question do not fall un-
der business support service. In this regard he take support of the following
judgments :-
• Godfrey Philips India Ltd. - (2005) 2 SCC 515
• Neha Construction Private Limited - 2018 (11) TMI 92-CESTAT Hyder-
abad = 2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 58 (Tri. - Hyd.)
• Sana Engineering Company - 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 210 (Tri. - Chen.)
• Air Liquide North India Private Limited - 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 230. (Tribu-
nal).
4. He further submitted that even the appellant’s activity does not fall
under the scope of Infrastructure Support Service. He submitted that the infra-
structure only related to administrative and office related service, therefore, even
the activity does not fall under the infrastructure support service. He also take
support of the judgment of South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufactures - (1997) 1 SCR
878, as regard the limitation. He submits that the appellant have reflected all the
transactions on its books of accounts and the investigation started after the audit
of the record of Welspun by department, the appellant had bona fide belief about
non-payment of Service Tax on its activity of maintaining and operating the bus-
es owned by Welspun therefore, the extended period of limitation could not have
been invoked by the revenue.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  158