2013 (1) TMI 300 - AT - Service Tax

Reverse charge u/s 66A - Import of service - Appellant did not discharge the service tax liability - Interest and penalty levied - Intention to evade the tax - Appellant contended that whatever tax they paid on reverse charge basis, they were eligible to take credit - In view of the revenue neutral situation Held that - On account of revenue neutrality, service tax need not be paid is a proposition which cannot stand to any common sense or logic. It completely nullifies the levy of service tax u/s 66A and therefore, such a proposition should be rejected outright. The law cannot be interpreted in such a way so as to negate the very objective of taxation. When a tax liability arises it should be discharged in time. If there is a default, then liability to interest is automatic and consequential and therefore, if there is a delay in payment of service tax which is the position in the present case, the appellant is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of tax. Direct to deposit pre-deposit of interest

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax on services received from abroad.
2. Imposition of penalty for non-payment of service tax.
3. Argument of revenue neutrality and applicability in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was found to have not discharged the service tax liability amounting to Rs.6,86,160/- for services received from abroad during the period March 2008 and March 2009. A notice was issued demanding the service tax along with interest and proposing to impose penalties. The case was adjudicated, confirming the demand of service tax, interest thereon, and imposing penalties under Sections 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Both the appellant and the department appealed, with the lower appellate authority rejecting the appellant's appeal and confirming the penalty equivalent to the service tax not paid.

2. The appellant argued that they paid the service tax liability as soon as the case was detected, before the show-cause notice was issued, and contended that the mistake was due to inadvertence. They claimed eligibility to take credit for the tax paid on a reverse charge basis, leading to a revenue-neutral situation. The appellant denied any intention to evade duty and pleaded not to be liable for interest or penalty. On the other hand, the revenue department argued that it was an offense case, and revenue neutrality does not apply, justifying the imposition of service tax, interest, and penalties.

3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of revenue neutrality, emphasizing that the levy of service tax under Section 66A should not be nullified. It was stated that tax liabilities must be discharged promptly, with interest being automatic in case of delays. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the interest liability within a specified period and report compliance. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit of the penalty would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency, with a detailed examination of the appellant's eligibility for credit and intention to evade tax deferred to the final hearing.