Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 742 - AT - Service TaxComputer Reservation System (CRS / GDS) - services relating to the reservation of ticket availability position through on line computer system - whether Online Database Access or retrieval Service was received by the appellant from foreign based CRS service provider and liable to service tax in terms of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 on reverse charge mechanism basis - Difference of opinion - Majority order - Held that - The said services were being received in respect of various computer reservation system from various CRS companies like M/s. Galilio International Partnership, USA; M/s. Abacus Distribution System Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, M/s. Amadeus Marketing SA Spain, and M/s. Sabre Travel Information Network etc. Said services were being provided by M/s. CRS or GDS Company to the head office of the air lines in terms of agreement entered between them and their head office. The above matters were heard by the undersigned as Third Member along with difference of opinion in the matter of British Airways 2014 (6) TMI 626 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) - the matter on merits as also on limitation was in favor of assessee - By adopting the final decision of British Airways vide my Order 2014 (6) TMI 626 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of service tax under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 for 'Online Database Access or Retrieval Service' received from CRS service providers abroad. 2. Applicability of extended period of limitation under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Service Tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994: The primary issue was whether the appellant airline, operating in India under RBI permission, was liable to pay service tax for 'Online Database Access or Retrieval Service' received from foreign-based CRS service providers on a reverse charge mechanism basis under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant was the recipient of the said service and thus liable to service tax. The service involved facilitating reservation and ticket availability through online systems maintained by CRS companies like Galileo, Amadeus, etc. The appellant argued that the service was provided to its head office abroad, not directly to the Indian branch. However, the adjudicating authority concluded that the service was indeed received in India by the appellant, making them liable for service tax. 2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994: The appellant challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice, arguing that they believed in good faith that they were not liable for service tax. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant had suppressed the value of taxable service and failed to file returns, justifying the extended period. The appellant's plea of bonafide belief was rejected, and the extended period was deemed applicable due to the deliberate evasion of tax. 3. Imposition of Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994: Penalties were imposed on the appellant under sections 77 and 78 of the Act for failing to register and file returns, and for evading service tax. The appellant contended that there was no intention to evade tax and that any service tax paid would be available as Cenvat credit, making the exercise revenue-neutral. However, the adjudicating authority upheld the penalties, citing the appellant's deliberate breach of law and suppression of facts. Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges: - D.N. Panda (J): Upheld the adjudication order, concluding that the appellant was liable for service tax under section 66A, the extended period of limitation was applicable, and penalties were justified. - Rakesh Kumar (T): Disagreed with the adjudication order, holding that the appellant was not the recipient of the service under section 66A, the extended period of limitation was not applicable, and penalties were not justified. Majority Decision: The matter was referred to a third member due to the difference in opinions. The third member agreed with the Technical Member (Rakesh Kumar), leading to the final decision that the appellant was not liable for service tax, and the extended period of limitation and penalties were not applicable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
|