Shri G. Sanjeevi Vs. Cce (St)

Shri G. Sanjeevi vs Cce (St)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Apr 04, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/47174

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/47174
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: K T P.
Decided On: Apr 04, 2008
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shri G. Sanjeevi

Respondent

Cce (St)

Excerpt

1. m/s. lakshmi travels rendered 'rent a cab operator' service during 2000-01 to 2003-04. it was a partnership firm comprising partners s/sh.n. muruganandam, g. govindraj and g. sanjeevi. as per the order of the original authority and upheld by the impugned order, notice initially issued to m/s. lakshmi travels was withdrawn and a fresh notice issued to the noticees in october, 2005. the consistent plea of the partners of m/s. lakshmi travels has been that the department was aware of the fact of m/s. lakshmi travels rendering service to organizations such as m/s. ongc and m/s. cpcl as early as december, 2001 and therefore the notice issued in 2005 was barred by limitation. the authorities had addressed m/s ongc and m/s cpcl in 2001 on the same tax liability. the original authority had demanded service tax liability of rs. 3,87,881/- each from the erstwhile partners of m/s. lakshmi travels. penalties of rs. 50,000/- each were imposed on s/sh. muruganandam and g. govindraj and a penalty of rs. one lakh was imposed on shri g. sanjeevi, under section 78 of the finance act '94 (the act). appropriate interest was also demanded from them.2. the ld. counsel representing the appellant submits that predeposit of demand and penalties relating to the other two appellants was waived vide s.o. no. 873 & 874/2007 dt 21.08.07. it is submitted that the said stay order was passed considering the argument of limitation. she pleads that similar relief may be granted in the case of present appellant.3. i have also heard the ld. sdr. prima facie the demand raised against the appellant is time barred. in the circumstances, i direct that there shall be complete waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of the service tax, interest and penalty imposed on the appellant till the final disposal of the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. M/s. Lakshmi Travels rendered 'Rent a cab operator' service during 2000-01 to 2003-04. It was a partnership firm comprising partners S/Sh.

N. Muruganandam, G. Govindraj and G. Sanjeevi. As per the order of the original authority and upheld by the impugned order, notice initially issued to M/s. Lakshmi Travels was withdrawn and a fresh notice issued to the noticees in October, 2005. The consistent plea of the partners of M/s. Lakshmi Travels has been that the department was aware of the fact of M/s. Lakshmi Travels rendering service to organizations such as M/s. ONGC and M/s. CPCL as early as December, 2001 and therefore the notice issued in 2005 was barred by limitation. The authorities had addressed M/s ONGC and M/s CPCL in 2001 on the same tax liability. The original authority had demanded service tax liability of Rs. 3,87,881/- each from the erstwhile partners of M/s. Lakshmi Travels. Penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each were imposed on S/Sh. Muruganandam and G. Govindraj and a penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed on Shri G. Sanjeevi, under Section 78 of the Finance Act '94 (the Act). Appropriate interest was also demanded from them.

2. The Ld. Counsel representing the appellant submits that predeposit of demand and penalties relating to the other two appellants was waived vide S.O. No. 873 & 874/2007 dt 21.08.07. It is submitted that the said stay order was passed considering the argument of limitation. She pleads that similar relief may be granted in the case of present appellant.

3. I have also heard the Ld. SDR. Prima facie the demand raised against the appellant is time barred. In the circumstances, I direct that there shall be complete waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of the service tax, interest and penalty imposed on the appellant till the final disposal of the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Shri G. Sanjeevi vs Cce (St) Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K T P.