2016 (2) TMI 770 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax from the person who is sub-letting of CAB - it was found that out the of the 62 cab operators, to whom the respondent has sub-let his vehicles, 34 operators were not registered with the Department and out of remaining 28 registered operators, 15 operators had not discharged service tax liability on the cabs procured from the respondent. - Held that - The services have actually been provided by the other rent-a-cab operators and not by the assessee. The one who has provided the services is liable to pay the service tax. Merely because such service stands provided by the other sub-contractors by taking the respondent s vehicle, will not shift the responsibility to pay service tax on the respondent. It is not the Revenue s case that the respondent himself provided such services or letting of vehicles to the other sub-contractors is also covered by the definition of rent-a-cab service. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:

1. Liability of service tax on vehicles sub-let by a rent-a-cab operator to other cab operators.
2. Responsibility for payment of service tax on services provided by sub-contractors.
3. Validity of penalties imposed on the respondent.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of service tax on vehicles sub-let by a rent-a-cab operator to other cab operators

The case involved a rent-a-cab scheme operator who was registered with the Service Tax Department. The Revenue found that the operator was sub-letting vehicles to other cab operators, some of whom were not registered or had not discharged their service tax liabilities. A show-cause notice was issued proposing demand of tax, which was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner. On appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the operator was not liable to pay service tax on cabs sub-let to other cab agencies. The Commissioner observed that the liability to pay service tax rested with the actual service providers, the other cab operators, and not the respondent. The Commissioner set aside the penalties imposed on the operator. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Responsibility for payment of service tax on services provided by sub-contractors

The Revenue contended that since the other cab operators did not discharge their service tax liability and the respondent did not provide evidence of such discharge, the responsibility to pay the service tax should lie with the respondent. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal emphasized that the services were actually provided by the other rent-a-cab operators, not the respondent. It was clarified that the one who provided the services was liable to pay the service tax. The Tribunal noted that the respondent did not directly provide the services or that letting of vehicles to sub-contractors fell under the definition of rent-a-cab service. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it.

Issue 3: Validity of penalties imposed on the respondent

The Commissioner(Appeals) had set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent. The Tribunal, in line with its decision on the liability of service tax, upheld the setting aside of penalties. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the responsibility for service tax lay with the actual service providers, not the respondent who sub-let the vehicles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the liability to pay service tax on services provided by sub-contractors rested with the actual service providers, not the respondent who sub-let the vehicles. The Tribunal also upheld the setting aside of penalties imposed on the respondent.