M/S. Sobha Renaissance Information ... vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 102/2014 dated 03/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, BANGALORE ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Sobha Renaissance Information Technology Pvt. Ltd SRIT House, 113/1B, ITPL Main Road, Kundalahalli BANGALORE - 560037 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-service Tax 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 055 KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 26/03/2015

Date of Decision: 26/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20854 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After hearing both the sides, we find that Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction contained in the stay order passed by him, requiring full deposit of service tax.

2. The appellants main grievance is that while passing the stay order, the Commissioner (A) has neither considered the merits of the case nor the financial condition of the appellant and has simply classified the service under the category of management consultancy service.

3. The contention of the learned advocate is that they received the services of the foreign consultant for commencing a business is USA and thereafter the business was incorporated in USA only. The said services were not meant for consumption in India and as such, there is no requirement of payment of service tax. The said issues were raised before the Commissioner (A) who has not passed any order while deciding the stay petition.

4. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (A) and remand the matter to him for fresh consideration of the stay petition after appreciating the merits of the case as also the financial condition of the appellant. Needless to say that proper opportunity would be awarded to the appellant to present their case before Commissioner (A). Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in above manner.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv 3