2018 (2) TMI 400 - AT - Service Tax

Cleaning activity services - services of cleaning, housekeeping and other general conservancy services to BSNL and Trichy Airport - Held that - There is no allegation that appellants have billed or collected service tax amounts from BSNL or AAI. This being so, we are of the considered opinion that tax liability should be calculated after extending exemption limits available to small service providers and allowing cum tax benefit on the liabilities so arrived at - For the limited purpose of recalculating tax liability, the matter remanded back to the original authority. Penalty - Held that - penalties imposed u/s 76 & 78 of the FA are an overkill and will require to be set aside - penalty imposed u/s 77 upheld. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of cleaning, housekeeping, and conservancy services provided to BSNL and Trichy Airport.
2. Invocation of extended period for tax liability.
3. Benefit of exemption limit for small service providers and cum-tax benefit.
4. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.

Taxability of Services Provided:
The appellants provided cleaning, housekeeping, and conservancy services to BSNL and Trichy Airport. The Department considered these services taxable under "cleaning activity services" from 16.06.2005. The original authority confirmed a tax liability of &8377; 27,34,988/- for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.11.2006, along with interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the forum.

Invocation of Extended Period:
The appellant argued that they were unaware of the tax liability introduced on 16.06.2005 and thus, the extended period of limitation should not apply. However, the forum held that since the appellants did not approach the department to clarify their tax liability doubts, the invocation of the extended period was legally correct. Therefore, the appellant could not escape the liability for that period.

Exemption Limit and Cum-Tax Benefit:
Regarding the benefit of exemption limit for small service providers and cum-tax benefit, the forum found merit in the appellant's arguments. As there was no evidence of the appellants billing or collecting service tax amounts from BSNL or AAI, the forum decided that tax liability should be calculated after extending exemption limits for small service providers and allowing cum-tax benefit. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for recalculating the tax liability accordingly.

Imposition of Penalties:
The forum referred to a Tribunal decision in the case of Rajasthan Ex-servicemen Ltd. and concluded that penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act were excessive and set them aside. However, the penalty under Section 77 was upheld. The appeal was disposed of based on these decisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the taxability of services provided, the invocation of the extended period, the benefit of exemption limit and cum-tax benefit, and the imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act.