Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1036 - AT - Service TaxReverse Charge Mechanism - GTA Services - extended period of limitation - Held that - there is no sustainable ground for invoking extended period except the recording by the lower authority that neither ST-3 was filed nor the tax was paid in time - This cannot establish a case of willful mis-statement, suppression of facts with intend to evade payment of service tax. Since the appellant is called upon to pay service tax as a deemed service provider on reverse charge basis, the demand for extended period cannot be sustainable - appeal allowed.
Issues: Liability for service tax on reverse charge basis, eligibility for SSI exemption, question of limitation
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the appellant was held liable for service tax on reverse charge basis for GTA services availed by them. The lower authority determined the liability for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 and ruled that the appellant was not eligible for the SSI exemption based on threshold turnover. Additionally, the lower authority held against the appellant on the question of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's eligibility for SSI exemption is governed by Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. It was observed that there was no valid reason for invoking the extended period for demand, except for the failure to file ST-3 or pay tax on time. The Tribunal concluded that this did not establish willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade service tax payment. As the appellant was required to pay service tax as a deemed service provider on reverse charge basis, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal found a wrongful appreciation of legal provisions on limitation in the impugned order, leading to the order being set aside on this ground. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for the demand on the extended period. The judgment was delivered by Shri B. Ravichandran, Technical Member, and SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.
|