2025 (6) TMI 445 - AT - Service Tax

Demand barred by time limitation or not - demand for service tax for the period prior to 1.10.2013 - Demand of service tax on sale of space for advertisements - Demand of service tax said to have been collected from the client departments and not deposited - Demand of service tax on service charges collected for printing. Demand barred by time limitation or not - demand for service tax for the period prior to 1.10.2013 - HELD THAT - Demand invoking extended period of limitation can be invoked only if the non-payment or short payment of service tax is by virtue of fraud collusion wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of the provisions the Act or Rules with an intent to evade paying service tax. Similar provisions were in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT held that when the facts are known to both sides the assessee cannot be alleged to have suppressed the facts and extended period of limitation could not be invoked. In this case there is no dispute that the appellant was registered with the service tax department and had been self- assessing service tax and filing returns. If the returns are filed it is the responsibility of the officer to scrutinize them and for this purpose he can also call for any records and scrutinize them. If the officer failed to do so and if some tax escapes assessment and it is later discovered by the audit the fault lies at the doorstep of the officer. The negligence of the officer cannot be called suppression by the assessee - the ratio of Nizam Sugar Factory squarely applies to this case and the demand for extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. Since the normal period of limitation is only from 1.10.2013 only the provisions applicable to the post negative list regime (from 1.7.2012) would apply. Demand of service tax on sale of space for advertisements - HELD THAT - The entire demand in this case is of service tax on sale of space for advertisements prior to 2014 and the appellant had been paying service tax from 2014. If that be so the demand on this count cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside subject to verification by the Commissioner. Demand of service tax said to have been collected from the client departments and not deposited - HELD THAT - The Commissioner did not agree with this submission in the impugned order for the reason that the appellant had not produced evidence that the amounts were paid to the empanelled agencies. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted before us voluminous documents to substantiate his assertion that the amounts collected as service tax were paid to the empanelled agencies - it would be appropriate for the Commissioner to verify the documents. To the extent the amounts have been paid to the empanelled agencies no service tax can again be demanded from the appellant. If any amount collected as service tax has not been deposited as service tax or paid to the empanelled agency such amount alone needs to be deposited as per section 73A of the Act. Demand of service tax on service charges collected for printing - HELD THAT - What is exempted under this notification is any intermediate production process as job work in relation to printing. What the appellant did is not a job work. It had contracts from the client departments contracts for getting the brochures manuals etc. printed. It engaged someone else to do the job of printing after preparing content using its in-house expertise. The appellant was by no stretch of imagination a job worker to a printer. The printer in fact was the appellant s sub- contractor. Therefore the appellant s service is clearly not covered by this exemption notification. The appellant is liable to pay service tax on the service charges which it had collected from the client departments towards printing work but only within the normal period of limitation. Conclusion - i ) The demand for extended period of limitation and the penalty under section 78 of the Act are set aside. ii) The demand of service tax on selling of space for advertisements is payable only after 2014 and according to the appellant the entire demand under this head is for the period before 2014. The demand is accordingly set aside subject to verification by the Commissioner. If any part of the demand in the impugned order under this head pertains to the post 2014 period the demand is upheld to that extent. iii) The demand of amounts said to have been collected as service tax from the client departments and not deposited need not be deposited to the extent they were merely collected and paid to the empanelled agencies. The Commissioner may verify the documents for the purpose. The appellant shall submit all documents to the Commissioner within four weeks from the date of this order. iv) Service tax on service charges on printing collected in the post negative list is upheld. The appeal is partly allowed and is remanded to the Commissioner solely for verification and computation.

2006 (4) TMI 127 - SC

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:

1. Whether the demand for service tax for the period prior to 1.10.2013 is barred by limitation, particularly the applicability of extended period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994.

2. Whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the sale of space for advertisements during the relevant periods, considering the negative list regime and exemption notifications.

3. Whether the amounts collected by the appellant from client departments as service tax on behalf of empanelled agencies but not deposited with the department constitute a recoverable demand.

4. Whether service tax was payable on the service charges collected by the appellant for printing work, especially in the post-negative list regime, and the applicability of exemption notifications.

5. Whether penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

Limitation and Extended Period of Limitation

The legal framework involves section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, which prescribes the limitation period for demanding service tax. Extended limitation can be invoked if non-payment or short payment is due to fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or violation of provisions with intent to evade tax.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court precedent in the Nizam Sugar Factory case, which held that if facts are known to both parties, suppression cannot be alleged and extended limitation cannot be invoked.

The appellant had been registered and filing returns regularly, and earlier audits and SCNs had been issued on the same issues. The Tribunal found no evidence of fraud or suppression by the appellant. The failure to detect tax shortfall was attributed to the department's negligence, which cannot be equated with suppression by the appellant.

Therefore, the extended period of limitation invoked for demands prior to 1.10.2013 was held unsustainable and set aside. Only demands within the normal limitation period (post 1.10.2013) were maintainable.

Service Tax on Sale of Space for Advertisements

The relevant legal provisions are section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 1994, defining "selling of space or time slots for advertisements" as a taxable service, with exemptions under the negative list regime.

Before 1.7.2012, this service was not taxable. Between 1.7.2012 and 30.9.2014, selling of space/time slots for advertisements other than those broadcast by radio or television was exempt under section 66D(g). Post 1.10.2014, the exemption was limited to print media only.

The appellant contended that the entire demand under this head related to the pre-2014 period, during which the service was exempt. The Tribunal accepted this submission subject to verification by the Commissioner. If any demand pertains to the post-2014 period, it would be sustained.

Demand on Amounts Collected as Service Tax but Not Deposited

The appellant collected amounts invoiced by empanelled agencies as service tax from client departments and paid these agencies accordingly. The issue was whether non-deposit of these collected amounts constituted a recoverable tax demand.

The Commissioner in the impugned order did not accept the appellant's submission due to lack of documentary proof of payment to empanelled agencies.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to submit all relevant documents within four weeks and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for verification. It held that to the extent amounts collected as service tax were actually paid to empanelled agencies, no further demand could be made. Any shortfall would be recoverable under section 73A of the Act.

Service Tax on Service Charges for Printing Work

The appellant charged 10% service charges on printing work and did not pay service tax on these charges during the pre-negative list period, relying on exemption notifications. The demand included amounts from both pre- and post-negative list regimes.

Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 (entry no. 30) exempts services by way of intermediate production process as job work in relation to printing. The Tribunal analyzed whether the appellant's activity fell within this exemption.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a job worker but a principal contractor who engaged printers as sub-contractors. Therefore, the exemption did not apply to the appellant's service charges.

Accordingly, service tax on service charges collected for printing work in the post-negative list regime was held payable within the normal limitation period.

Penalty under Section 78

Penalty under section 78 requires proof of willful mis-statement, suppression, or intent to evade tax. Since the extended limitation period was not applicable and no such elements were found, the penalty was set aside.

Conclusions and Significant Holdings:

"The ratio of Nizam Sugar Factory squarely applies to this case and the demand for extended period of limitation cannot be sustained."

"If any amount collected as service tax has not been deposited as service tax or paid to the empanelled agency, such amount alone, needs to be deposited as per section 73A of the Act."

"The appellant was, by no stretch of imagination a job worker to a printer. The printer, in fact, was the appellant's sub-contractor. Therefore, the appellant's service is clearly not covered by this exemption notification."

"The demand for extended period of limitation and the penalty under section 78 of the Act are set aside."

"The demand of service tax on selling of space for advertisements is payable only after 2014 and according to the appellant, the entire demand under this head is for the period before 2014. The demand is accordingly set aside subject to verification by the Commissioner."

"The demand of amounts said to have been collected as service tax from the client departments and not deposited need not be deposited to the extent they were merely collected and paid to the empanelled agencies."

"Service tax on service charges on printing collected in the post negative list is upheld."

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside demands related to extended limitation and penalty, remanding the matter for verification of payments to empanelled agencies, and upholding service tax liability on printing service charges in the post-negative list period.

← Previous Next →