Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 435 - CESTAT MUMBAIDemand of service tax - SEBI - ‘negative list regime’ - demand of tax on the fees collected, under the authority of the various Rules and Regulations notified for administration of the financial market in India, and retained in the General Fund of the appellant - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The legislation, enforcement of laws and administration of justice are sovereign functions. We also deduce that the discharge of these functions may be subject to such laws as the competent legislative authority intends it to be so; consequently, statutes, not especially dealing with these specifically, do not immunize the discharge of sovereign functions if the legislative intent, stated or implied, does not exclude such subordination. The requirement of goods in the operating establishments of government cannot be equated with the discharge of sovereign obligations. The consequent ease with which the distinguishability of goods from functioning as a sovereign affords the latitude of transaction - of manufacture, of import and of sale and purchase – in goods to be carved out for assigning to designated subordinates or entities, with attendant accountability to authorities under normal tax laws, is not discerned in the tax relating to services. The generalized definition of ‘services’ in the ‘negative list’ regime appears to have been the clarion call for tax intrusion into activities of government. Much of these, not being individual-specific deliveries and, moreover, without perceptible consideration could not have held the attention of tax authorities for long but others, in which government bodies were empowered to receive fees, did. Thus, it, probably, was that the focus of the adjudicating authority rested upon the autonomy of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the participants in the financial markets and the fees charged from them as ‘provider’, ‘recipient’ and ‘consideration’ respectively. Clearly, the concept of ‘service’ and, particularly, the legislative reliance on the expression ‘for’ in section 65B (44) of Finance Act, 1994, to substitute ‘to’ in section 65 (105), did not make any impression on the adjudicating authority. The premise that there is no pale of ‘service’ outside Finance Act, 1994, and the fitment thereon within the definition, admittedly, without finding a place in the exclusions or exemptions, though eminently convenient, is, nevertheless in error for this reason. This Tribunal has been established to adjudge appeals arising from adjudication orders of Commissioners and appellate orders of Commissioners (Appeals). In appropriate circumstances, we may be called upon to construe circulars and instructions as beyond the scope of enforceability; however, statutory instruments issued by the Central Government in exercise of power to exempt tax conferred by Parliament are beyond the scope of such negation by us. Neither is the continued existence of such statutory instrument dependent on our approval; to do so would be frittering away of judicial resources - With that notification, the Central Government, a custodian of the sovereignty assigned to the Republic by the people of India, has distanced the authority wielded over the financial markets by the appellant, notwithstanding duly acknowledged succession, through creation under an executive order, from a department exercising that authority, from sovereign power. This abnegation, coupled as it is, with the renunciation of future tax liability arising therefrom, is cleansed of the stain of vested interest. We cannot but withhold our ascertainment of the legality of the claim made by the appellant before us. Extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The composition of the Board is determined by the Government of India and the organization is staffed in accordance with rules framed under the governing statute. The receipts accruing to the appellant, in accordance with procedures laid down by law, are retained in a designated fund and scrutinized by the constitutionally established auditor. The retention of such fee in the assigned fund has been prompted by the principle of separation of powers much in the same way that the three organs of State are compartmentalised. Therefore, it is difficult to conceive of any motive in not complying with tax liabilities. There is also no allegation of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant. Imposition of Fiscal Penalties - HELD THAT:- The appellant is statutorily empowered to impose fiscal penalties for breaches enumerated in the statute and the proceeds of such imposition are credited to the Consolidated Fund of India - no different from the deposit of fines imposed by adjudicating authorities under Finance Act, 1994. As the successor, in due course, of the Government of India in Department of Economic Affairs substituting for the abolished Controller of Capital Issues, its role in the scheme of governance for the larger public interest is not a matter of mere conjecture. Service tax authorities had raised the issue of taxability of the fees charged by the appellant within a few months of the transition to the ‘negative list regime’ and the appellant had been in correspondence with appropriate levels in the tax administration seeking acceptance of their interpretation. It, therefore, does not behoove the tax administration to claim that there has been suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant. The delay on the part of tax authorities in issuing show cause notice cannot be justified by the argument that the bar of limitation extends to five years past from the date of issue of show cause notice; the jurisdictional tax authority was cognizant of the non-payment, and the reasons thereof, well before the normal period of limitation had lapsed. The mantle of sovereign power was not easily deniable and we cannot but conclude that the impugned order erred in concluding that the ingredients for invoking the extended period, and for imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were, directly and indirectly, evidenced - The demand for the period beyond normal limitation, therefore, does not sustain - Consequently, the penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is set aside. Appeal disposed off.
|