2016 (4) TMI 693 - AT - Service Tax

Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand of Service tax and imposition of penalty for the period 17.12.2002 to 1.5.2006 - Cargo handling service - Appellant contended that it was essentially an individual contractor and therefore was not a commercial concern and genuinely believed that it was not liable to service tax - Held that - the contention of the appellant that although its name was M/s Vigyatraj Patni, but it was given contract in the name of M/s Vigyatraj Patni - contractor as an individual is not held to be acceptable as it is evident that during the period involved, there was scope for confusion that the individuals were not covered under the scope of commercial concern . In these circumstances it is not unreasonable on the part of the appellant to have a bona fide belief that it was not liable to pay service tax. - Matter remanded back

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand under cargo handling service for the period 17.12.2002 to 1.5.2006 - Whether the appellant was a commercial concern liable to pay service tax - Extended period invocation - Wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts - Confusion regarding coverage of individuals under commercial concern - Applicability of penalties under Sections 76 & 78.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal dated 30.7.2009, where the service tax demand under cargo handling service for the period 17.12.2002 to 1.5.2006 was set aside on the grounds that the appellant, being an individual, was not considered a commercial concern. Penalties under Sections 76 & 78 were also set aside. However, a service tax demand of &8377; 2,13,488/- was confirmed under cargo handling service in an order-in-original dated 29.1.2009.

2. The Revenue contended that the appellant, a proprietorship concern, was indeed a commercial concern liable to pay service tax, alleging wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts during the relevant period.

3. On the contrary, the appellant argued that it operated as an individual contractor and not as a commercial concern, believing in good faith that it was not liable to pay service tax.

4. The Tribunal observed that the appellant, being a proprietorship concern engaged in commercial activity, would qualify as a commercial concern. However, during the relevant period, there was confusion regarding whether individuals were covered under the scope of a commercial concern. The replacement of "commercial concern" with "any person" from 1.5.2006 may have contributed to this confusion. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's belief of non-liability to pay service tax was not unreasonable given the circumstances and the confusion prevailing during that period.

5. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that the extended period for tax demand is not invocable without positive evidence of wilful mis-statement or conscious withholding of information. Merely incorrect statements do not amount to wilful mis-statement. Therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence, the extended period cannot be applied.

6. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the primary adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed that the extended period should not be invoked, and the demand should be limited to the normal period. Additionally, it was ruled that penalty under Section 78 was not attracted and should not be imposed, emphasizing that the appellant must be given a fair opportunity to present their case during the fresh adjudication process.