2013 (9) TMI 143 - AT - Service Tax

Event Management services - appellant entered into an agreement with Unicef for providing services appellant contended that services provided to Unicef are exempted in terms of notification no.16/2002-ST Revenue contended that the benefit of the said notification cannot be extended to the appellant on the ground that the services does not stand provided by them directly but they have provided the services to some other party, who had further provided the said services to Unicef Held that - Service was provided to Unicef has led to a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee to entertain a view that no further service tax is required to be paid by them. Limitation period limitation invoked by the department rejected by the court services on the Even Management Services being provided by them and ST-3 returns were being filed - lower authorities have not produced any evidence on record to show that the appellant was not including the value of the disputed services in their ST-3 Returns with any malafide intent stay application allowed in the favour of the appellant.

Issues:
1. Service tax demand confirmed against the appellant.
2. Dispute regarding services provided to different entities.
3. Interpretation of notification exempting services to certain organizations.
4. Allegation of double taxation.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation.

Service Tax Demand:
The judgment confirms a total service tax demand of Rs.9,22,496/- against the appellant, along with penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. The appellant, a registered Service Tax provider in Event Management, had been discharging their service tax liability. The dispute arose from agreements with M/s. Lintas India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rural Communication Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The demand in question pertained to services provided to M/s. Lintas India, which the appellant argued were actually provided to M/s. Unicef, an organization exempted under a specific notification. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that the services were indeed provided to Unicef, even though there was an intermediary involved, M/s. Lintas India Pvt. Ltd.

Interpretation of Notification:
The notification exempted services provided to Unicef by any person. The appellant maintained that they managed the entire event related to "save girl child" for Unicef, despite the agreement being between M/s. Lintas India Pvt. Ltd. and Unicef. The tribunal agreed that the services were provided by the appellant to Unicef, supporting the appellant's argument on this point.

Allegation of Double Taxation:
Regarding the balance demand confirmed due to services provided to M/s. Rural Communication Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the appellant contended that M/s. Rural Communication Marketing Pvt. Ltd. had already paid service tax on the entire value of the services provided. The tribunal agreed that confirming service tax on the same services again would amount to double taxation, as the plea of the appellant remained unrebutted by the lower authorities.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The demand was raised invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant had been filing ST-3 returns and was discharging service tax on Event Management Services. The tribunal noted that there was no evidence to suggest malafide intent in not including the disputed services in the returns. The issue was deemed of a technical nature requiring legal interpretation. Given the circumstances, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the limitation issue, as there was a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that no further service tax was required to be paid.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the stay petition in favor of the appellant based on the detailed analysis and findings on the various issues raised in the case.

← Previous Next →