2013 (9) TMI 513 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax intermediary services - Appellant was providing services to connect the user of service with the provider to fulfil the object of each other consuming the service provided - the appellant was remunerated satisfying the need of the destination based consumption tax - All India Federation of tax practitioners vs. UOI (2007 (8) TMI 1 - Supreme Court) Held that - The appellant was an intermediary serving its client who was ultimate service provider - Show cause notice should not be read with hyper technicality the intention of the subject, language and object of the show cause notice shall be understood in such manner that the notice seeks to achieve as decided in CCE, Calcutta vs. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. (1996 (1) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Pre deposit of duty - prima facie case is against the assessee - 50% of the duty to be submitted stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax demand under "Business Auxiliary Service" category.
2. Service tax demand under "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service" category.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service tax demand under "Business Auxiliary Service" category:
The appellant argued that the nature of service provided did not fall under "Business Auxiliary Service" as claimed by the Revenue. The appellant contended that providing an access code number did not constitute a taxable service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant emphasized that the real service was provided by another service provider, not by them, when the contact code was used by the service seeker. However, the Revenue asserted that any assistance provided to achieve a common objective would classify as "Business Auxiliary Service." The Tribunal examined the show cause notice and concluded that the appellant acted as an intermediary connecting the ultimate service provider with the service seeker using a prescribed code. The Tribunal found that the appellant's role facilitated the connection between the provider and user of the service, thereby fulfilling the contract's objective without frustration. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount to comply with the tax liability.

Issue 2: Service tax demand under "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service" category:
Regarding the second count of demand under the "Management, Maintenance or Repair Service" category, the appellant argued that since software was not considered goods before a specific date, management, maintenance, or repair of software should not be subject to service tax until that date. However, the Revenue pointed out that a circular clarified the taxation of software. The Tribunal did not provide specific details on the resolution of this issue in the summarized text.

In conclusion, the Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties regarding the service tax demands under different categories. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the show cause notice, the role of the appellant as an intermediary, and the tax liability imposed on the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of understanding the core of the notice without hyper-technicality and directed the appellant to comply with the specified deposit requirements.