2010 (12) TMI 114 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - The learned counsel would submit that the KSRTC had only given its space on the bus stands and buses to M/s. Venpakal Advertisements and others who in turn do the selling and pay Service Tax - Since the issue needs to be considered from the factual matrix, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order; keeping all the issues open, remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider all the issues afresh after following the principles of natural justice. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority - Stay petition is also disposed of

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, Education Cess, interest, penalties under Section 77 and Section 78.
2. Service Tax liability arising from the sale of space and time for advertisement by the appellant.
3. Discharge of Service Tax liability by M/s. Venpakal Advertisements and others.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, Education Cess, interest, and penalties under Sections 77 and 78. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to take up the stay petition and the appeal together for final disposal due to the narrow compass of the issue.

2. The Service Tax liability in question arose from the appellant providing services of sale of space and time for advertisement. The appellant argued that the actual liability was discharged by M/s. Venpakal Advertisements and others who utilized the space on bus stands and buses owned by the appellant. However, the lower authorities did not address this crucial point. The Tribunal noted that if the Service Tax liability had already been paid by M/s. Venpakal Advertisements and others, the question of the appellant's liability needed further examination. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to follow the principles of natural justice.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of addressing the factual matrix regarding the discharge of Service Tax liability by other parties involved in utilizing the appellant's space for advertisement. The lower authorities failed to consider this aspect, leading to the decision to remand the case for a reevaluation of all issues. By allowing the appeal through remand to the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal ensured a comprehensive review of the matter, keeping all issues open for further examination. The stay petition was also disposed of in light of the remand decision.