2011 (7) TMI 939 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Rent-a-Cab Operator s - Whether giving a cab on hire on demand basis for which the charges from the client are made on per K.M. basis are covered under the definition of rent-a-cab operator service - Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh Gill (2010 -TMI - 77051 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) held that in case a cab is given on hire to M/s. I.O.C. then the assessee is providing a taxable service - Decided against the assesse

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's activity amounts to providing 'rent-a-cab' service for Service Tax purposes.
2. Whether the penalties imposed on the appellant are justified under the Finance Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the demand of Service Tax and penalties imposed, arguing that providing a cab to B.S.N.L. under a monthly payment agreement does not constitute 'rent-a-cab' service. They relied on a Tribunal decision in R.S. Travels v. CCE, Meerut, which supported their position. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant's arrangement with B.S.N.L. falls under 'rent-a-cab' service, citing a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CCE, Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh Gill. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's case differed from R.S. Travels as it involved a long-term agreement for cab rental, aligning more with the situation in the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Service Tax demand, considering the appellant's service as 'rent-a-cab.'

2. Regarding penalties, the appellant argued that as a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act was already imposed, the penalty under Section 76 was not sustainable separately. They referenced the City Motors case from the Punjab & Haryana High Court to support their stance. The appellant highlighted the Finance Act's provision that allows a 25% penalty if the Service Tax, interest, and 25% penalty are paid within thirty days of determination. The appellant claimed they had made the necessary payments, akin to the requirements under Section 78. Citing the M/s. K.P. Pouches case from the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's payment as a valid discharge of the penalty under Section 78. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of 'rent-a-cab' service for Service Tax purposes and provides insights into penalty provisions under the Finance Act, offering guidance on compliance and dispute resolution in such matters.