2013 (11) TMI 350 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Advertisement Agency Service - huge variation in the value of the taxable service declared in the ST 3 return and the receipts as per their annual financial statements which indicated short payment of service tax and the applicants were not able to give any explanations for such short declaration in ST-3 returns - Held that - Applicant could not have taken credit of any service which was not paid for by them and which did not form part of the value of the service rendered by them and we find that though the profit shown is only Rs. 6 lakhs, the company is running and the total revenue is of the order of Rs.60 lakhs and their plea of financial hardship cannot be acceded to, fully. Therefore, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance on 23.8.13. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Short payment of service tax under Advertisement Agency Service and Business Auxiliary Service.
2. Demand of Cenvat Credit based on invoices issued by TV channels.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, engaged in Advertising Agency Service, faced discrepancies in the value of taxable service declared in ST 3 returns and receipts from annual financial statements, leading to short payment of service tax. The Revenue initiated proceedings resulting in confirmation of Rs. 8,72,505/- for Advertisement Agency Services and Rs. 5,50,461/- for Business Auxiliary Services. The applicant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the short declaration in returns, prompting the Revenue's actions.

2. Additionally, a demand of Rs. 30,98,627/- was made due to the applicant claiming Cenvat Credit based on invoices from TV channels. The Revenue contended that these services were not valid input services, and the value of disputed input services was not included in the output service value for tax payment. The applicant's financial hardship plea was countered by the Revenue, emphasizing the need for strict terms of deposit, especially for ineligible credit claims.

3. The appellant's counsel highlighted the financial difficulties faced by the company, citing a modest profit of Rs. 6 lakhs in the previous year. However, the Revenue argued against leniency, stressing that the applicant should not have claimed credit for unpaid services not integral to their rendered services. Despite the applicant's plea of financial hardship, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument and directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within six weeks. Upon compliance, pre-deposit of the remaining tax, interest, and penalties was waived, with the collection stayed pending the appeal's resolution.

This judgment underscores the importance of accurate declaration and payment of service tax, as well as the eligibility criteria for claiming Cenvat Credit. Financial hardship alone may not suffice as a defense, especially when discrepancies in tax payments are identified. The Tribunal's decision balances the need for compliance with the tax laws while considering the financial circumstances of the appellant.