2017 (6) TMI 765 - AT - Service Tax

Event Management Service - non-payment of tax - appellant submits that during the impugned period, the service tax is payable on receipt basis not on the basis of invoices issued by the appellant and on the basis of the demand, the invoices issued by the appellant - Held that - during the impugned period, the service tax was payable on receipt basis and in this case demand has been confirmed on the basis of invoices issued by the appellant - It is not the case of the Revenue that the invoices have been issued and not recorded in the records and received the amount of service provider without showing in the books of accounts - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for change of cause title modification.
2. Appeal against demand of service tax for 'Event Management Service' for 2003-2006.

Application for Change of Cause Title Modification:
The judgment addresses an application for change of cause title where the Respondent incorrectly mentioned Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II instead of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I. The tribunal modified the cause title as requested by the applicant after considering the submissions from both parties.

Appeal Against Demand of Service Tax for 'Event Management Service' for 2003-2006:
The appeal pertains to a demand of service tax amounting to &8377; 2,94,894/- imposed on the Appellant for providing 'Event Management Service' during 2003-2006. The investigation revealed that the service tax demand was based on invoices issued by the Appellant. The Appellant argued that during the relevant period, service tax was payable on a receipt basis, not invoice basis. The tribunal found that the demand based on invoices was incorrect as there was no evidence that the invoices were issued but not recorded in the accounts or that the service provider received payments without proper accounting. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the demand against the Appellant was not sustainable and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly applying tax laws and procedures, specifically regarding the basis for calculating service tax liability and the necessity of proper documentation and record-keeping to support tax assessments.