2017 (6) TMI 1248 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax under BAS and GTA - Held that - An identical issue came up before this Bench in various matters in the case of GREEN LEAF TOBACCO THRESHERS AND OTHERS LTD VERSUS C.C.,C.E., & S.T. -GUNTUR 2017 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT HYDERABAD wherein the Bench presided by the Hon ble President has held that service tax liability does not arise under the category of BAS for threshing activity while GTA services are liable to be discharged by the appellants - the demands, interest thereof and penalties under BAS set aside, while upholding the service tax liability under GTA liability. Penalty - Held that - Since the issue of service tax liability under GTA was in dispute and have to be settled by retrospective amendments and also various decisions of the apex court, the penalty imposed under the category of GTA is set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by assessee against demand of service tax under BAS and GTA.
2. Appeal by Department regarding service tax liability under BAS for threshing activity.

Analysis:
1. Appeal by Assessee:
- The issue in this appeal pertains to the demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Goods Transport Agency (GTA). The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that service tax liability does not arise under BAS for threshing activity, but GTA services are liable for service tax. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the demands, interest, and penalties under BAS while upholding the service tax liability under GTA. The Tribunal mentioned that the issue of service tax liability under GTA was in dispute and had to be settled by retrospective amendments and decisions of the apex court. Therefore, the penalty imposed under the category of GTA was also set aside. The appeal by the assessee was disposed of based on these findings.

2. Appeal by Department:
- The issue in the Department's appeal was related to the service tax liability under BAS for the activity of threshing and redrying of tobacco. The first appellate authority had held that no service tax liability under BAS arises for this activity. The Tribunal noted that a similar view had been taken in previous cases by the same Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision was made based on the consistency of views on the issue across different cases.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgments in both appeals were based on the interpretation of service tax liability under BAS and GTA for specific activities. The decisions were consistent with previous rulings and aimed to provide clarity on the application of service tax in the given scenarios.