- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the notice of demand dated 20-9-2000 (Annexure-1) to the writ petition demanding from it service tax. The petitioner claims that it is carrying on business of sale and manufacture of Bidies in the name and style of M/s. Ram Kishan Daya Ram as a registered partnership firm at Gursahaiganj, Kannauj. It is not transporting any goods and therefore, is not liable to pay any service tax.
(2.) Section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000 has amended clause (6) in Section 65 of the Act No. 32 of 1994 which reads as under : "(a) in Section 65 (i) For clause (6), the following clause had been substituted, namely :( 6) "assessee" means a person liable for collecting the service tax and includes ( i) his agent; or (ii) in relation to services provided by a clearing and for-warding agent, every person who engages a clearing and forwarding agent and by whom remuneration or commission (by whatever name called) is paid for such services to the said agent; or (iii) in relation to services provided by a goods transport operator, every person who pays or is liable to pay the freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage."
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not covered by clause (iii) of Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Act (as amended) and it is not liable to pay any freight either itself or through its agent for the transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage.;