2014 (7) TMI 662 - HC - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - Technical Inspection and Certification Service provided - Appellant was informed on 01.08.2006 by the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax that their activities would not fall under the category of services rendered and they would not be covered under the Service Tax - Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 13.04.2010 for the period October 2004 to March 2006 - Held that - the period relates to time before the letter of the office of the Commissioner was withdrawn on October 27, 2006. On such basis, the Tribunal was of the opinion that when the Department itself was in doubt regarding the taxability of service in question, larger period could not have been invoked. - The Department itself had at one stage conveyed to the assessee that service in question was not taxable service. Though subsequently such letter was withdrawn, the assessee cannot be stated to have, with mala fide intention or with the purpose of breaching the provisions of the Act or the Rules, made inaccurate or incorrect declaration - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of setting aside service tax demand based on limitation without examining merits.
2. Justification of holding that Department took a stand against the appellant's services falling under technical inspection and certification services category.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in setting aside the demand of service tax solely on the ground of limitation without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the invocation of a larger period by the authorities was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal based its decision on a letter dated August 1, 2006, from the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, which initially stated that the assessee's activities did not fall under taxable services. Although this letter was later withdrawn on October 27, 2006, the disputed period ranged from October 2004 to March 2006, predating the withdrawal of the letter. The Tribunal opined that since the Department itself was uncertain about the taxability of the service during the relevant period, invoking an extended period was unwarranted. Consequently, the notice issued on April 13, 2010, was deemed time-barred. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning, highlighting that the Department's initial communication to the assessee regarding the non-taxable nature of the service precluded any malicious intent or violation of statutory provisions by the assessee. Therefore, the Court dismissed the tax appeal.

2. The second issue revolved around the justification of the CESTAT's decision in holding that the Department had taken a stance against categorizing the appellant's services as technical inspection and certification services, despite no such stand being officially declared by the Department. The Tribunal's ruling was intertwined with the larger issue of limitation and the Department's initial communication regarding the taxability of the service. The High Court's agreement with the Tribunal's stance on the limitation aspect indirectly addressed this issue as well. By affirming the Tribunal's decision on the limitation issue, the High Court implicitly supported the Tribunal's finding that the Department's alleged stance on the nature of the appellant's services did not hold ground. The Court's dismissal of the tax appeal encompassed a comprehensive affirmation of the Tribunal's reasoning, thereby encompassing all aspects of the case, including the issue related to the Department's purported stance on the service category.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory limitations and the significance of the Department's initial communication in determining the taxability of services. The judgment underscored the need for clarity and consistency in administrative actions to prevent unjust consequences for taxpayers.