By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, AUG 18, 2018: THE respondent assessee is engaged in the business of export of Iron Ore and is registered with the Department under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency Services'.

It was alleged that the assessee had short paid Service Tax for the period from 1.1.2005 to 30.09.2006 on the services rendered.

In appeal, the CESTAT had held that from the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Finance Bill, 2004, it is evident that there is no intention to levy service tax on truck owners or truck operators and in the absence of any finding that the appellants had received service of transport of goods from any GTA, demand of service tax and penalties were liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

We reported this order as - 2010-TIOL-122-CESTAT-BANG.

Aggrieved, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court and the same was disposed of by a coordinate bench on 20.04.2011. Inasmuch as the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Not satisifed with this order, a further appeal was filed before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11398/2016 and the matter came to be remanded back to the High Court. Kindly see - 2018-TIOL-46-SC-ST.

And, therefore, the matter was heard recently.

The High Court after considering the submissions made by both sides observed -

"9. …, we are prima facie satisfied that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the present case as quoted above, does not give proper and detailed findings of facts, nor does it discuss the various amendments of law in this regard and their applicability, of the same to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Tribunal has essentially relied upon the speech of the Finance Minister delivered in the Parliament in the year 2004 only, for holding that the present appellant/assessee was not liable to pay service tax for the aforesaid period, without discussing the relevant provisions of law and the notifications."

Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision afresh.

(See 2018-TIOL-1638-HC-KAR-ST)