2013 (5) TMI 312 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax/interest/penalty under GTA services As per by department appellant was providing taxable service from more than one premises and not having centralized registration, billing or accounting system and they also had not obtained registration from the jurisdictional authority - Service Tax demand on gross amount collected for providing services by them. Held that - Show cause notice issued to the appellant initially talks about the demand of Rs.4,67,671/- for the demand of Service Tax under GTA services for the period January 2005 to October 2005. On totaling the amount paid by the appellant as per the annexures indicating the exact amount of Rs.1,59,312/- as being paid from the centralised registered unit at Gurgaon and adding an amount of Rs.76,819/- which has been paid for the month of October 2005, the total demand which has been raised in the show cause notice is tallying with the amount paid by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has correctly discharged the Service Tax liability due to the above reason. Impugned order to the extent it upholds that the Service Tax of Rs.1,59,312/- with interest and penalties, is liable to be set aside

Summary

Issues: Service Tax registration, centralized registration, payment discrepancies, penalty imposition.

Service Tax Registration:
The appeal involved a case where the appellant had obtained Service Tax registration under the category of "Goods Transport Agency" for one premises only, without centralized registration as required by Rule 4(3A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant was providing taxable services from multiple premises without centralized registration, billing, or accounting system, leading to a demand for Service Tax payment.

Payment Discrepancies:
The appellant claimed to have paid Service Tax amounting to Rs.4,67,671/- at their Delhi office, but the challans did not specify if the payment was for the Kutch unit. The issue of discrepancy in payment was a key point of contention, leading to a demand for payment under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Penalty Imposition:
The lower authority confirmed the demand for Service Tax, imposed interest, and penalty under Sections 77 & 78 of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal and a stay application, complying with the conditions of the Stay Order. The appeal resulted in the demand being upheld, but the penalty under Section 78 was reduced to the equivalent amount of Service Tax confirmed.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, which again confirmed a demand of Rs.1,59,312/- as unexplained by the appellant. The appellant argued that the Service Tax was paid using Central Excise registration, highlighting the amounts paid for the Kandla unit. The Additional Commissioner contended that the appellant failed to justify the payment for the Kandla unit during a specific period.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not paid the Service Tax for the period January-March 2005 with the intent to evade payment, despite claiming confusion and clerical errors. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence provided by both sides, including verification conducted by different Commissionerates, and concluded that the appellant deliberately avoided paying the Service Tax for the mentioned period.

The Tribunal reviewed annexures indicating the exact amount paid from the centralized registered unit at Gurgaon, reconciling the total amount paid with the demand raised in the show cause notice. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the order upholding the demand of Rs.1,59,312/- with interest and penalties, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented and discrepancies in payment justification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent that the Service Tax demand of Rs.1,59,312/- with interest and penalties was not sustainable, allowing the appeal in part and providing a detailed analysis of the payment discrepancies and penalty imposition issues involved in the case.