2008 (11) TMI 112 - AT - Service Tax

In addition to activity as authorized service station appellant also arranging car loan from various banks/financial institutions to the car buyers for which they were getting commission from banks/financial institutions impugned services are covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Services and not as Consignment Agent - held that tax is payable on the gross amount (commission) received from the bank since levy of tax on BAS was new, consolidated penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability for service tax on commission received for arranging car loans.
2. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability for service tax on commission received for arranging car loans:
The case involved the appellants, who were initially discharging service tax liability as an authorized service station of General Motors. Subsequently, it was discovered that they were also arranging car loans and receiving commissions from banks/financial institutions, falling under "Business Auxiliary Services." The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a service tax demand, and penalties were imposed. The appellants argued that they were commission agents and not liable for service tax under specific notifications. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the appellants did not meet the definition of a commission agent. The Tribunal also clarified that service tax had to be paid on the gross amount received from banks/financial institutions, not the net amount. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment to support this decision. Regarding penalties, the Tribunal considered the circumstances, the awareness of service tax obligations, and the appellants' prompt payment upon notification. The consolidated penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, while penalties under the Review Order were set aside.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994:
The Commissioner, under Section 84 of the Finance Act, imposed penalties on the appellants for various violations, including failure to submit returns on time, failure to include Business Auxiliary Services in their registration, and suppression of the value of taxable services. The appellants contested these penalties, arguing that they promptly paid the admitted amount upon notification and did not suppress any information. The Tribunal considered the period of dispute, the awareness of service tax obligations, and the appellants' compliance upon notification. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld a consolidated penalty while setting aside penalties imposed under the Review Order. The decision aimed to balance the enforcement of tax laws with fairness and the circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.