Commissioner of Service Tax vs Electronic Research Pvt. Ltd.

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Accepting the reasons stated in the Affidavit and in view of the law laid down in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, allowed and the delay of 108 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

The matter is taken-up for admission and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

We need not go into the merits of this case in view of the fact that the demand notice was served on the assessee on 18-9-2001. As per Section 117 of Finance Act, 2000 the action taken would be validated. The said act received assent of President on 12-5.2005 and only from that date the same is effective. In Laghu Udyog Bharati and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, it is held that the provisions of Rule 2(d)(1)(xvii)(sic) [Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) of the Rules are ultra vires of Finance Act and the Apex Court directed the department to refund the Service tax collected from the assesses. The Apex Court struck down Rule 17 of the Rules holding that the users of service are not liable to pay Service tax and the service provider has to pay the same.

For the reasons stated above, the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal memorandum does not arise. The appeal devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.