Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (9) TMI 571 - AT - Service Tax


Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is the adjustment of excess paid service tax by the appellant, the interpretation of Rule 6(4A) and Rule 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, and the imposition of penalty and interest by the Revenue.

Interpretation of Rule 6(4A) and Rule 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The appellant had paid excess service tax of Rs.60,17,195/- for the month of September 2012, which was adjusted in December 2012. The Revenue contended that the excess paid service tax should have been utilized during the immediate next succeeding month as per Rule 6(4A). However, the appellant argued that Rule 6(4A) does not specify immediate adjustment and allows adjustment in the succeeding month. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that Rule 6(4A) does not mandate immediate adjustment, and therefore, the appellant did not violate the rule by adjusting the excess amount in December 2012.

Allegations under Rule 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The Revenue invoked Rule 6(4B) which states that the excess amount paid should not be on account of interpretation of law, taxability, valuation, or exemption notification. The appellant argued that the show cause notice did not allege that the excess payment was due to any of these reasons. The Tribunal found that the conditions specified in Rule 6(4B) were unsubstantiated in the show cause notice, leading to the conclusion that the Revenue failed to establish any violation by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible to utilize the excess paid service tax in December 2012.

Penalty and Interest Imposition:
The original authority had confirmed the demand for service tax, imposed a penalty, and ordered payment of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly adjusted the excess paid service tax in accordance with Rule 6(4A) and that the Revenue had not proven any violation of Rule 6(4B). Therefore, the imposition of penalty and interest was deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates