2011 (9) TMI 308 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax on GTA services - Penalty u/s 76 &78 - Section 71A was inserted retrospectively requiring service recipient to file return within six months - lower authorities have confirmed service tax on the sole ground that the appellants failed to file ST-3B return as required under section 71A and also failed to apply Service Tax registration in terms of section 69 of Finance Act, 1994. The demand notice stands issued beyond the period of limitation - no merit in the impugned order, which accordingly is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of service tax against the appellants for GTA services received, retrospective amendment affecting the demand, failure to file ST-3B return and apply for Service Tax registration, issuance of demand notice beyond the limitation period, earlier show cause notice for the same period, settlement of earlier proceedings in favor of the assessee.

Confirmation of Service Tax:
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the service tax of Rs.1,12,992 against the appellants for GTA services received during a specific period. The confirmation was based on the appellants' failure to file the required ST-3B return as per section 71A and to apply for Service Tax registration under section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand notice was issued beyond the limitation period of five years, which is the maximum allowed under the law. The confirmation was also influenced by the retrospective amendment through sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, which inserted section 71A requiring service recipients to file returns within six months from a specific date.

Retrospective Amendment and Earlier Proceedings:
The Tribunal noted that an earlier show cause notice for the same period and amount had been issued, which was confirmed by the lower authority but later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner allowed the appeal on the grounds that the demand under section 73 was not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that since the earlier proceedings had been settled in favor of the assessee, it was not permissible for the Revenue to re-adjudicate the same matter by issuing another show cause notice. This settlement of the earlier proceedings was a crucial factor in determining the lack of merit in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
In light of the settlement of earlier proceedings and the lack of merit in the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the decision confirming the service tax against the appellants. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of respecting settled proceedings and preventing re-adjudication of matters already decided in favor of the assessee.