2012 (8) TMI 316 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax liability on the commission received - Held that - A submission was made during the hearing that the fact of payment of service tax was incorporated in the ST3 returns filed by the appellant but it was fairly agreed that this claim was also not made before the original authority - if the appellant was aware that service tax was being paid by Maruti Udyog Limited, invocation of extended period also may not be fair since there cannot be any suppression of facts or mis-declaration in such a situation - remand the matter back.

Summary

Issues:
Service Tax liability on commission received from M/s Maruti Udyog Limited.

Analysis:

Issue: Service Tax liability on commission received from M/s Maruti Udyog Limited

The case involved a Stay Petition concerning the Service Tax liability on the commission received by the assessee from M/s Maruti Udyog Limited for facilitating customers to benefit from financial institutions. The counsel for the assessee highlighted that M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd had already paid the Service Tax liability on such commissions. The Tribunal noted that the issue was narrow and could be disposed of after allowing the waiver of the amounts involved. Reference was made to a previous Final Order involving the same appellant company and issue, where it was remanded back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that Service Tax cannot be collected twice on the same service and that the department should have verified the claim of the assessee regarding the payment of Service Tax by M/s Maruti Udyog Limited. It was also pointed out that certain aspects, including trading activity and relevant legal amendments, were not considered by the lower authorities, leading to the impugned order being set aside and remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were not binding on the adjudicating authority, which was directed to decide all issues afresh after allowing the appellant to present their case. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, following the precedent of the Tribunal's earlier decision on a similar issue involving the same assessee.

---