2017 (9) TMI 91 - AT - Service Tax

Reverse charge mechanism - commission paid to commission agents located outside India - Held that - it is a well settled principle that service tax is a consumption/destination based tax and the services of commission agents were availed and used by the appellants located in India. The tax liability in such situation in terms of Section 66A has been upheld - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the issue relating to service tax liability on the recipient of service was a subject matter of large number of litigations - there is no justification for invoking allegation of willful mis-statement, suppression of fact with intend to evade service tax etc - demand barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Tax liability on services rendered outside India.
2. Applicability of service tax on recipient of service on reverse charge basis.
3. Justification for invoking extended period for demand.
4. Allegation of suppression of fact to evade service tax.
5. Bar on demand by limitation.

Analysis:

1. Tax liability on services rendered outside India:
The appellants contested the tax liability on the ground that the services were rendered outside India. However, the Tribunal noted that service tax is a consumption/destination-based tax, and since the services of commission agents were availed and used by the appellants located in India, the tax liability under Section 66A was upheld. The Tribunal supported its decision with relevant case law and found no reason to interfere with the lower Authority's finding on the liability for service tax post 18/04/2006.

2. Applicability of service tax on recipient of service on reverse charge basis:
The appellants argued that the demand was hit by limitation under Section 73(1). The show cause notice and the Original Authority had justified the demand for an extended period based on the appellant's failure to add Business Auxiliary Service in their registration and not filing ST-3 return for services received from outside India. However, the Tribunal found that the impugned order did not provide a proper justification for invoking the extended period. Considering the legal disputes and lack of clarity on the concept of reverse charge on import of service until the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for allegations of willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade service tax. Consequently, the demand was deemed barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside on this ground.

3. Allegation of suppression of fact to evade service tax:
The Tribunal observed that the issue of service tax liability on the recipient of service had been a subject of numerous litigations, with the legal position only getting clarified post the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Given the lack of justification for invoking allegations of willful misstatement or suppression of fact, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was unjustified and beyond the normal period from the relevant date, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

4. Bar on demand by limitation:
In light of the legal disputes and the lack of clarity on the reverse charge mechanism for service tax, the Tribunal held that there was no valid basis for invoking the extended period for demand. As a result, the demand was considered barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside on this ground, thereby allowing the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the legal reasoning behind the decision to set aside the demand based on the grounds of limitation and lack of justification for invoking the extended period.

← Previous Next →