2008 (9) TMI 228 - AT - Service Tax

Demand under the Head Rent-a-Cab Operators Service by invoking larger period of limitation suppression of fact that they were Rent-a-Cab Operators - copy of the registration certificate indicates that the appellants were registered as a tour operator and further that the registration was subsequently changed to RTA i.e. Rent-a-Cab Operator - a copy of TR-6 challan evidencing payment of service tax by the appellants as Rent-a-Cab Operators - finding of suppression is not factually correct stay granted

Issues involved:
1. Demand of service tax under the Head 'Rent-a-Cab Operators Service' for the period April 2001 to March 2006.
2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act.
4. Demand of interest on tax under Section 75 of the Act.
5. Dispute regarding disclosure of status as 'Rent-a-Cab Operators' to the department.
6. Availability and submission of documentary evidence to support the status disclosure.
7. Allegation of suppression against the appellants.
8. Non-cooperation in producing documentary evidence.
9. Claim of loss of records due to floods affecting document production.
10. Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner of Service tax demanded over Rs. 92 lakhs from the appellants under the Head 'Rent-a-Cab Operators Service' for the period April 2001 to March 2006. Penalties were imposed under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act, along with interest on tax under Section 75 of the Act.

2. The extended period of limitation was invoked based on the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to alleged non-disclosure by the appellants that they were 'Rent-a-Cab Operators'. The appellants contested this by presenting documentary evidence, including a registration certificate issued by the department indicating their status as a tour operator changed to 'RTA,' which they claim stands for 'Rent-a-Cab Operator.'

3. The appellants provided additional evidence such as TR-6 challans and service tax returns for various periods, showing payment and disclosure as 'Rent-a-Cab Operators.' The appellants argued that the finding of suppression against them was incorrect, attributing any lack of cooperation in producing documents to the loss of records in floods.

4. The learned SDR contended that the finding of suppression was due to the appellants' non-cooperation in providing evidence. However, the appellants maintained that they had submitted all available records and were hindered by the loss of documents in floods. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' case regarding the limitation issue.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the amounts of service tax, interest, and penalties. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Members.

← Previous Next →