2006 (3) TMI 738 - Commissioner - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability under rent-a-cab scheme operator service tax not paid.
2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78.
3. Dispute regarding show cause notice clarity and liability determination.
4. Applicability of Section 65(91) for rent-a-cab services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided 'rent-a-cab scheme operator' service to M/s. BSNL without paying service tax for a specific period. The department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax, interest, and imposed penalties under various sections. The appellant contested the order on grounds of lack of awareness of service tax laws, reliance on previous judicial decisions, and compliance upon learning of the liability.

2. The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties beyond the tax liability, citing a lack of awareness and immediate compliance upon notification. They referenced a Supreme Court decision to support their stance. However, the authority found the appellant's case for penalty waiver weak, noting the failure to seek registration, file returns, or pay dues until audited by M/s. BSNL. The authority concluded that the penalties were justified based on the circumstances.

3. The appellant disputed the clarity of the show cause notice, claiming ambiguity in invoking liabilities as both a tour operator and rent-a-cab service provider. Additionally, the appellant challenged the determination of liability under Section 65(91) instead of Section 65(38) for rent-a-cab services. The authority deemed these arguments unacceptable, stating that the notice's invocation of liabilities was clear, and the reference to Section 65(91) was a mere oversight without affecting the validity of the order.

4. The appellant's argument regarding the applicability of Section 65(91) for rent-a-cab services was dismissed by the authority. The authority clarified that while the show cause notice mentioned liabilities under both tour operator and rent-a-cab service categories, the order only imposed liability under the rent-a-cab operator category. The authority upheld the order, emphasizing that the appellant failed to demonstrate a valid reason for penalty waiver and that the impugned order was sustainable based on the circumstances presented.

Overall, the appeal was rejected, and the impugned order confirming the service tax, interest, and penalties was upheld by the authority after considering the appellant's arguments and relevant legal provisions.