High Court appeal by Principal Commissioner CGST against CESTAT decision dropping a service tax demand on expense reimbursements by a logistics operator. Court found no substantial issue of law arising from the tribunal's findings and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~26
versus
M/S HAIKO LOGISTICS PVT INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Agrim Arora & Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
O R D E R % 05.09.2024
CM APPL. 25244/2024 (2 Days Delay in filing) & 25245/2024 (15 Days Delay in Refiling)
SERTA 13/2024
“c. Whether the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 14,99,54,386/dropped by the Ld. CESTAT on the income shown as non-taxable in Financial Data Summary Sheets (FDSS) by entirely relying upon the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:15:04
findings of Adjudicating Authority is correct, without taking into consideration additional evidence including bills, challans of duty payments and other supporting documents to ascertain the correctness of Chartered Accountant Certificate as produced before the Adjudicating Authority?
d. Whether the Respondent / Assessee is liable to pay Service Tax on difference in figure of 'Income' in Form ST-3 and Form 26AS?”
“26. The demand has been rightly dropped in the order dated 22.05.2018. By letters dated 0l.01.20l6 and 15.01.2016, the appellant was asked to provide details of the value shown as nontaxable under financial data summary sheet earned for activities covered under BSS. In the third show cause notice dated 11.04.2016, which was issued for period 2014-15 the demand was proposed on the amount under the category or BSS only. There is no rnentfon of sectfon 65B(44) of the Finance Act. Thus, the demand was proposed under BSS which was not even in existence during the period in dispute from 2014-15. This specific submission was made by the appellant when it submitted data by letter dated 29.1.2016, but the show cause notice dated 11.04.2016 did not advert to this issue. The demand cannot, therefore, be sustained as it is based on obsolete provisions and under a category
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:15:04
which ceased to exist. In this connection reliance can be placed on the decisions of the Tribunal in M/s. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Alwar (Raj.) and Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. M/s. The Peoples Choice.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
SEPTEMBER 5, 2024/ MR
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2024 at 12:15:04
2 issues framed by the court
Whether service tax demand on reimbursements of customs duty and freight paid by a multi-modal transport operator for clients is sustainable?
Whether service tax applies to differences between income figures in Form ST-3 and Form 26AS?
Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi South
M/S HAIKO LOGISTICS PVT INDIA
Yashwant Varma
Ravinder Dudeja
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a service tax matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
