2017 (3) TMI 68 - AT - Service Tax

Rent-a-car service - abatements - the notification was not mentioned in the ST 3 return - linkage for the consideration to the services rendered previously - payment of Service Tax at the abated rate during the period post 1.4.2006 - appellant claim that these are relatable to services rendered prior to 1.4.2006 - Held that - the consideration for services rendered prior to 1.4.2006 were also received after 1.4.2006 and applicability of abated rate for the said receipts cannot be questioned - the proceedings were initiated only based on ST 3 return filed which contain details of consideration received and tax paid. ST 3 return was later revised twice for correction of figures, not relating to present dispute - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellants.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over non-payment of service tax at correct applicable rate during April to September 2006
- Imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
- Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi I
- Applicability of abated rate of tax for services rendered before and after 1.4.2006
- Lack of evidence linking consideration to services rendered prior to 1.4.2006

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the non-payment of service tax at the correct applicable rate during the period of April to September 2006 by an entity engaged in the service of rent-a-car. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not discharge the service tax on the enhanced applicable rate of tax and the full value of consideration received, resulting in a demand of &8377; 44,20,576 and imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand but set aside the penalty under section 78 and modified the penalty under section 77. The main issues raised by the appellant related to the applicability of the abated rate of tax for services rendered before and after 1.4.2006. The appellant claimed to have availed concessions under specific notifications and discharged tax accordingly. The dispute arose due to the Revenue's contention that there was no evidence linking the consideration received to services rendered prior to 1.4.2006.

The appellant argued that they had correctly calculated the tax liability based on the rates applicable to different periods and had attached detailed calculations to their ST 3 return. Despite not mentioning a specific notification in the return, they provided supporting evidence, including a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. The Revenue, on the other hand, claimed that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of paying tax at an abated value for part of the consideration.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the appeal records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed availed abatement for the financial year 2005-2006 and paid tax accordingly. The dispute mainly revolved around the payment of service tax at the abated rate post 1.4.2006, with the appellant asserting that these payments were related to services rendered before that date. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided detailed calculations and supporting documents, including invoices and certificates, to substantiate their position.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting that there was no evidence to support the Revenue's claim that the consideration received post 1.4.2006 was not linked to services rendered before that date. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.