2017 (8) TMI 551 - AT - Service Tax

Sale of space or time for advertisement - activity rendered by the appellant is for display of advertisements in the bus panels in the space available in buses and also by hoardings and railway glow etc - extended period of limitation - Held that - In the present case, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) provides a place in the rear of the busses or inside the buses for display of the advertisement. It is not established that the appellants were engaged in making, preparation, conceptualizing or visualizing of the advertisement - the issue was under much doubt during the relevant time and was highly contentious. For the same reason, the appellants cannot be held to be guilty of suppression of facts - extended period not invoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the activities of the appellant qualify as services falling under Advertisement Agency Service?
- Whether the demand of service tax along with interest and penalties imposed by the original authority is sustainable?
- Whether the appellant can be held guilty of suppression of facts justifying the demand invoking an extended period of limitation?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant was engaged in rendering services related to the display of advertisements through bus panels, hoardings, and railway glow sign Ads. The department issued a show cause notice alleging that these activities qualify as services falling under Advertisement Agency Service. The appellant argued that they merely rented out spaces for advertisements and did not involve in making, preparation, conceptualizing, or visualizing the advertisements. They contended that the activity falls under the category of "Sale of Space or Time for Advertisement Services" and cited a Board Circular supporting their position. The Tribunal noted that the services for the sale of space or time for advertisement became taxable only from 1.5.2006. It was observed that the appellant did not engage in creating advertisements but provided space for display. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and circulars to support its conclusion that the appellant's activities did not fall under Advertisement Agency Service.

Issue 2:
The original authority confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that they had complied with the law by providing necessary details to the department. They contended that the show cause notice invoking an extended period alleging suppression of facts was not sustainable. The Tribunal considered the uncertainties and contentions surrounding the interpretation of the definition of advertisement agency service during the relevant period. It noted that several decisions favored both the assessee and the Revenue, indicating the lack of clarity in the law. The Tribunal concluded that the demand invoking an extended period of limitation was not sustainable due to the ambiguity surrounding the taxability of the appellant's activities.

Issue 3:
The appellant argued against being held guilty of suppression of facts, emphasizing the uncertainties and doubts prevailing regarding the interpretation of advertisement agency services. The Tribunal acknowledged the contentious nature of the issue during the relevant time and the lack of clarity in the law. Considering the appellant's compliance with providing details to the department and the evolving nature of the tax provisions, the Tribunal held that the demand invoking an extended period of limitation based on suppression of facts was not justified. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, providing relief to the appellant.