2013 (8) TMI 782 - AT - Service Tax

Double taxation - services have been provided by two persons jointly - one partner has discharge the service tax - demand of service tax from another partners also - Commercial coaching and training services - Revenue had raised demand against the assesse on the ground that they were also beneficiary of the said services - Held that - There was no dispute that the commercial coaching services had been provided by two persons jointly - The service had been provided once, amount of service tax had been collected once and service tax have been paid by MAAC, the service tax can not be demanded from assesse for the same transaction/service for the second time legally - in the strict legal sense double taxation mean taxing the same property or subject matter twice -Demanding service tax on the taxable value on which service tax had already been paid under the same service would definitely lead to double taxation - Classification of service rendered was not the subject matter of the notice and nor the matter falls under my jurisdiction, being beyond the issue involved in the show cause notice - there was no prima facie reason to direct the assesse to deposit any amount of tax or penalty - Stay granted Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer to dispense with pre-deposit of service tax and penalty under Sections 75, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the appellant had an arrangement with a company for coaching and training services, with the company paying the service tax. The Revenue raised a demand against the appellant, alleging they were also beneficiaries of the services provided. The Adjudicating Authority found that the services were provided jointly under an agreement, with the company paying the service tax. The Authority held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax as the company had centralized registration and was paying the tax. The Authority cited a Board's Circular to support its decision.

The Commissioner, however, observed that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the service tax was paid by the company. This observation contradicted the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, which clearly stated that the company had discharged the tax liability. The Commissioner did not present any documentary evidence to counter the Adjudicating Authority's findings. Given the Adjudicating Authority's clear findings, the Tribunal found no reason to direct the appellant to deposit any tax or penalty, and thus allowed the stay petition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision that the company had paid the service tax and that the appellant was not liable for the same. The Commissioner's lack of evidence to the contrary led to the Tribunal's decision to allow the stay petition, dispelling the need for the appellant to deposit any tax or penalty.