2013 (7) TMI 71 - AT - Service Tax

Facility of centralized registration The revenue contented that the respondent s request for centralized registration was rejected and is not an appealable order Held that - The impugned order determines the right of the party or is likely to affect its rights,communication thereof cannot be said to be a communication simplicitor and appeal against such communication should be maintainable as the same has been decided in BHAGWATI GASES LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I (2008 (1) TMI 712 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). Eligibility for registration The revenue contented that as per rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, only service providers are eligible for centralized registration subject to certain conditions and not service recipients Held that - The argument is meaningless and defeats the objective of registration - The purpose of registration in indirect tax laws is to identify the tax payer here the tax payer or the person liable to pay tax is the receiver of the service contention of revenue cannot be accepted otherwise there will be no benefit of centralized registration Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing centralized registration to the respondent.
2. Rejection of centralized registration request by the Revenue.
3. Eligibility for centralized registration under Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal granting centralized registration to the respondent, M/s Maharashtra State Bureau of Text Books Production & Curriculum Research, Pune. The appellate authority allowed centralized registration based on the recipient's obligation to discharge tax liability for GTA service if maintaining centralized accounting. The Revenue contended that the rejection letter of the request was not appealable, but the Tribunal clarified that if a letter conveys the grounds of rejection and affects rights, it qualifies as an order for appeal purposes. Citing Bhagwati Gases Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed the appeal's maintainability.

2. The Revenue's second ground questioned the respondent's eligibility for centralized registration as a service receiver under rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Revenue argued that only service providers could avail centralized registration. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, emphasizing the purpose of registration in tax laws to identify the taxpayer. In this case, the recipient was liable to pay service tax and maintained centralized accounts, meeting the conditions for centralized registration. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's right to centralized registration, rejecting the Revenue's contention.

3. Conclusively, the Tribunal found no flaw in the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit. The judgment clarified the appealability of rejection letters affecting rights and affirmed the eligibility of service recipients for centralized registration if meeting specified conditions. The decision underscored the importance of registration in identifying taxpayers and upheld the respondent's entitlement to centralized registration based on maintaining centralized accounts.