2012 (5) TMI 424 - AT - Service Tax

Rent-a-cab provided - rebate / exemption - - reimbursement of expenses - assessee had claimed deduction on the fuel supplied, repair and maintenance cost met as well as cost of telephone. - Those expenses were not allowed as deduction - It was stated that vehicles were provided on rental basis to NTPC, ALSTOM, BHEL, ESCORT & YAMA since 1998, without seeking registration under Service Tax Law. Ld. Adjudicating authority recorded that the bills were raised in favour of different customers and service tax was realised through account payee cheques but no such tax realised was deposited into Treasury till the date of visit by Investigation Wing, Finding no basis of law, appellant s rebate claim of 30% was disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority Held that - appellant was a wilful evader as per the finding of the authorities below. no paperbook filed to show an appellant s defence against liability incurred since no evidence was led before the authorities below for grant of immunity from taxation. appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the rent-a-cab service provided.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order upholding the adjudication, questioning the liability for service tax on rent-a-cab services provided. The adjudication resulted in a service tax levy of Rs. 8,08,838, along with penalties and interest. The appellant requested a decision based on three specific cases. The appellant contended that expenses like fuel, repair, maintenance, and telephone costs were not allowed as deductions. The appellant did not appear during the hearing, causing concerns about suffering adverse consequences. The adjudication order demonstrated that the appellant had a hearing before the adjudicating authority, where all submissions were considered.

The adjudicating authority examined a statement from the proprietor, stating that vehicles were rented out to various customers without registering under the Service Tax Law. Although service tax was collected through cheques, it was not deposited into the Treasury until an investigation. The appellant's rebate claim was disallowed. The first appellate authority confirmed that tax was collected but not deposited until the investigation, finding no merit in the appellant's case. The appellant was accused of willful evasion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The appellant's reliance on previous tribunal orders was deemed irrelevant. The authorities found the appellant to be a willful evader for not depositing the collected tax, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The appellant failed to provide evidence to support its innocence or ignorance of the law. Without evidence to refute the findings, the authorities' decisions were upheld. The absence of work orders or agreements with customers further weakened the appellant's case. Due to the lack of evidence and failure to demonstrate innocence, the appeal was dismissed, agreeing with the authorities' concurrent findings.