9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1827 - AT - Service TaxTaxability of service tax liability viz-a-viz the activity of giving vehicle on hire under the head of Supply of Tangible Goods Service - receiving a rent-a-cab service under reverse charge mechanism - recovery of service tax of alongwith interest and penalties - invocation of extended period of limitation - taxable service defined under section 65 B 44 of Finance Act 1994/2012 - HELD THAT - I observe it to be an admitted fact that the entire service tax liability for the period in dispute with respect to giving machinery on hire i.e. with respect to Supply of Tangible Goods Service stands paid/ discharged by the appellant alongwith the interest on 07.06.2017. It is clear that the amount of tax demand in dispute for the said service was paid by the appellant much prior the issuance of impugned show cause notice except that a meager amount of Rs. 22, 177/- along with the interest of Rs. 17300 was paid on 22.02.2018 however prior the issuance of the Order-in-Original. Statute itself provides that where the assessee pays tax Show Cause Notice is not required to be issued. These observations are sufficient for me to hold that with respect to the activity of Supply of Tangible Goods it is not the case of evasion of duty. I hold that the extended period has wrongly been invoked I draw support from the decision in the case of Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Meerut 2005 (9) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT . Thus it becomes clear that in the present case there is no intentional evasion of tax on part of the appellant. Hence there was no reason to invoke the extended period of limitation. The Show Cause Notice is liable to be set aside on this score of limitation itself. Also the given circumstances sufficiently shows that present is not the case where penalty should have been imposed as the appellant had already paid the service tax which was not paid earlier due to bonafide belief of no liability. It is also a settled provision of law that mere omission cannot be called as an act of suppression. In the light of this entire discussion and the Show Cause Notice itself being barred by time the demand confirmed in the name of rent-a-cab service also gets hit by the period of limitation. Otherwise also the demand is not sustainable on the merits. In the present case the amount received by the appellant was the travelling expenses. There was no contract entered for getting cab on rent. Hence on merits also second demand with respect to rent-a-cab is not sustainable. As a result of entire above discussion the order under challenge is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto the appeal stands allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Liability to pay service tax on supply of tangible goods (machinery hire) Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 defines taxable services and includes the concept of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service' where goods are hired out. The appellant initially did not discharge service tax liability on hiring charges received. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut (2005 (188) ELT 149 (S.C.)) which clarifies the meaning of suppression of facts in tax matters. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant had a bona fide belief that the hiring charges were not taxable and hence did not register or pay service tax initially. Upon becoming aware of the liability, the appellant voluntarily registered on 31.05.2017 and paid the entire service tax liability along with interest prior to issuance of the show cause notice, except a small amount paid before the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal noted that the statute provides that where tax is paid, a show cause notice is not required. Key evidence and findings: The appellant submitted audited accounts, income tax returns, Form 26AS, and paid service tax challans evidencing discharge of tax liability. The department's contention that the amount received included service tax but no invoices were submitted was not sufficient to negate the voluntary compliance. Application of law to facts: Since the appellant discharged the entire service tax liability voluntarily and prior to the show cause notice, the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked. There was no willful suppression or evasion of duty, only a bona fide mistake. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation that mere failure to declare does not amount to suppression unless there is a positive act to evade duty. Treatment of competing arguments: The department argued for penalties and extended limitation invoking suppression and evasion. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the appellant's conduct was consistent with bona fide belief and voluntary compliance. Conclusion: The demand for service tax on supply of tangible goods was not sustainable under extended limitation and penalties were not justified. The show cause notice was barred by time and the appellant was not liable for penalty. Issue 2: Liability to pay service tax under reverse charge on rent-a-cab service Relevant legal framework and precedents: Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012 imposes service tax liability on the recipient under reverse charge for rent-a-cab services. The definition of 'service' under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act excludes mere transfer of title in goods and other non-service activities. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The department alleged that expenses shown by the appellant as travelling and vehicle running expenses amounting to Rs. 2,01,215/- were consideration for rent-a-cab service. The Tribunal found that there was no contract or evidence that the appellant received rent-a-cab service. The amount was merely expenses incurred and not consideration for taxable service. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's balance sheet showed these as expenses, not payments for rent-a-cab service. No contracts or invoices were produced to establish a taxable service receipt. Application of law to facts: Since the appellant did not receive a taxable service of rent-a-cab, the reverse charge liability did not arise. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory definition of service and absence of any contract or evidence for rent-a-cab service. Treatment of competing arguments: The department's argument was based on a presumption from accounting entries, which was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence. Conclusion: The demand for service tax under reverse charge on rent-a-cab service was unsustainable on merits and also barred by limitation. Issue 3: Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 77 of the Finance Act empowers imposition of penalty for failure to pay service tax. The extended period of limitation applies only in cases of suppression or evasion. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. which clarified that suppression requires deliberate concealment, not mere omission. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant did not have service tax registration or pay tax initially due to bona fide belief of non-liability. Upon realizing the liability, registration and payment were made voluntarily with interest. The Tribunal found no evidence of willful suppression or evasion. The show cause notice was issued after the extended period and thus barred. Key evidence and findings: Payment challans prior to show cause notice, absence of concealment, and voluntary compliance were key factors. Application of law to facts: The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked. Penalty was not justified as the appellant had rectified the position voluntarily and there was no evasion. Treatment of competing arguments: The department relied on a precedent where mis-declaration and suppression were found due to non-submission of documents. The Tribunal distinguished the present case where documents were submitted and voluntary compliance was made. Conclusion: The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked and penalties were not warranted. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "It is clear that the amount of tax demand in dispute, for the said service, was paid by the appellant much prior the issuance of impugned show cause notice except that a meager amount of Rs. 22,177/- along with the interest of Rs. 17300 was paid on 22.02.2018 however prior the issuance of the Order-in-Original. Statute itself provides that where the assessee pays tax, Show Cause Notice is not required to be issued." "Suppression of facts can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty when facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done not that he must have done would not render it suppression. It is settled that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful suppression. There must be some positive act from the side of the assessee to find willful suppression." "In the present case there is no intentional evasion of tax on part of the appellant. Hence there was no reason to invoke the extended period of limitation." "The taxable service is defined under section 65 B 44 of Finance Act, 1994/2012 as follows: 'Service means any ACTIVITY carried out by a person for another for CONSIDERATION, and includes a DECLARED SERVICE, but shall not include; (a) An activity which constitutes MERELY, 1. A transfer of title in GOODS or IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or 2. A transaction in money or ACTIONABLE CLAIM (b) A provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment. (c) Fees taken in any court or tribunal.'" "In the present case the amount received by the appellant was the travelling expenses. There was no contract entered for getting cab on rent. Hence on merits also second demand with respect to rent-a-cab is not sustainable." Final determinations:
|
