2017 (3) TMI 67 - AT - Service Tax

Tax liability on reverse charge basis - Held that - the provider of service from foreign country should be identified. In the present case, there is no indication of the identity of person who provided the BSS service - appellant could not submit the details and evidences due to various reasons - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of adjudicated dues, confirmation of service tax liability under Broadcasting Service and Business Support Service, factual and legal infirmities in the impugned order, lack of identification of service provider and amount paid, failure to provide crucial documents, need for fresh consideration by the original authority.

Analysis:
1. Stay Application: The stay application sought waiver of pre-deposit of adjudicated dues amounting to &8377; 13,90,77,846 confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner in an order dated 24.03.2014. The application was considered for Broadcasting Service and Business Support Service liabilities covered in two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued to the appellant for different periods.

2. Confirmation of Tax Liability: The impugned order confirmed service tax liability under Broadcasting Service and Business Support Service. However, the split-up figures for tax liability were not recorded. The liability under Business Support Service was confirmed on a reverse charge basis for hiring transponders for TV broadcasting, but the provider of service and the amount paid were not identified, raising legal and factual concerns.

3. Factual and Legal Infirmities: Both parties acknowledged various factual and legal infirmities in the proceedings. The tax liability calculation was based on the balance sheet for specific years, with best judgment used for certain periods without proper documentation or reasons. The appellant's claims regarding tax discharge for advertisement charges and non-taxable nature of content sale and other business income were disputed.

4. Identification of Service Provider: The tax liability under Business Support Service was confirmed without identifying the service provider, despite the appellant's claim of hiring transponders exclusively from a specific government undertaking. The lack of identification of the foreign service provider for reverse charge raised significant concerns about the validity of the liability.

5. Non-Submission of Crucial Documents: The appellant cited business problems, disputes with other agencies, and document dislocation due to office shifting as reasons for not submitting crucial documents timely. Acknowledging the importance of these documents, the appellant highlighted their potential impact on the fairness of the adjudication process.

6. Fresh Consideration and Remand: Given the serious factual and legal deficiencies in the impugned order, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh consideration. The appellant was granted the opportunity to submit their case with supporting evidence, emphasizing the need for a fair and reasoned decision. The Tribunal expected the adjudication to be completed promptly, within a specified timeline of not later than 4 months from the date of the order.

7. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of resolving the decade-old dispute promptly and fairly. The appellant committed to cooperation and timely submission of necessary documents, ensuring a more comprehensive and legally sound resolution of the tax liability issues under consideration.