Page 15 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 2nd July, 2020 xiii
Demand (Contd.)
charges, weighment expenses and miscellaneous expenses and Service
Tax on said debit note, rightly treated as reimbursement expenses - Also,
transportation charges, etc., paid by client and Service Tax discharged by
client as consignee on reverse charge basis, therefore, cannot be charged
to Service Tax on assessee’s account once again - Erroneous registration
not to render assessee liable to pay Service Tax as CHA - No infirmity in
impugned order and same upheld - Section 65(35) of Finance Act, 1994 —
Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Ludhiana v. Cruiser Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Tri. - Chan.) ........ 65
— Educational Service - Double Taxation - Career Launcher having central
registration with Department and assessee’s premises included in
Centralized registration - Service Tax paid on entire amount of fees
deposited by students - Entire arrangement on revenue sharing basis,
and part of fee collected remitted to assessee by Career Launcher -
Therefore, assessee cannot be required to again pay service tax on
impugned fee - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Niraj Prasad v. Commissioner
of C. Ex. & S.T., Kanpur (Tri. - All.) ............................. 78
— Educational services - License agreement executed between assessee and
Career Launcher (India) Limited under which assessee granted right to
use trademark, logo and proprietary system developed by Career
Launcher regarding various courses - Show cause notice issued alleging
assessee providing service to Career Launcher hence liable to pay Service
Tax on 75% amount transferred by Career Launcher to assessee under
category of Business Auxiliary Service - HELD : Perusal of agreement
reveal that assessee entitled to 75% of net revenue amount deposited in
bank account of Career Launcher towards fees collected from students,
while Career Launcher entitled to remaining 25% - Arrangement to be
typical revenue sharing model arrangement - Assessee receiving fixed
amount per annum or per month but only certain percentage of net
revenue - Assessee not service provider and Career Launcher not service
recipient - No service, therefore, provided to Career Launcher so as to
attract payment of any Service Tax - Impugned order cannot be sustained
- Impugned order set aside — Niraj Prasad v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T.,
Kanpur (Tri. - All.) .................................... 78
— Limitation - Extended period - Failure by assessee to prove that it was
case of ‘Self Service’ - Revenue clearly establishing that it was service for
which payment made to service provider by service recipient - Revenue
coming to know of these facts on checking of records and not from
independent source - However, not case of suppression with intention to
evade tax - Demand cannot be raised beyond of normal period - No
specific allegation of suppression, fraud, etc. to justify invoking larger
period of limitation - Demand only in normal period of limitation alone
can be sustained - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for
working out for liability, if any, for normal period alone - Section 73 of
Finance Act, 1994 — Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Jamshedpur (Tri.
- Kolkata) ........................................ 62
— Limitation - Suppression or misstatement of facts - Income arising from
the services rendered by assessee and reflected in Balance Sheet and
Profit and Loss Account which are public documents - Invocation of
extended period of limitation for raising demand based on figures shown
in such public documents, not sustainable - Section 73 of Finance Act,
1994 — Mega Trends Advertising Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Lucknow (Tri. - All.) ..... 57
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  15