2018 (6) TMI 1359 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - service tax with interest paid before issuance of SCN - Authorised Service Station Service - Held that - The appellant has paid the service tax along with interest much before the issue of show-cause notice and therefore the case is covered under Section 73(3) read with Explanation 2 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that once the service tax along with interest is paid before the issue of show-cause notice, then the Department should not issue show-cause notice. Penalties not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Appeal against the Commissioner(Appeals) order upholding the Order-in-Original and rejecting the appellant's appeal.
2. Double taxation issue due to service tax demand on the amount already taxed at the time of sale.
3. Sustainability of impugned order in law.
4. Payment of service tax along with interest before the show-cause notice issuance.
5. Applicability of Section 73(3) read with Explanation 2 of the Finance Act, 1994.
6. Precedents from Tribunal and High Court supporting the appellant's case.
7. Imposition of penalties under various provisions.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner(Appeals) order, which upheld the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant, engaged in servicing Bajaj vehicles, argued against double taxation, claiming that the service tax demand on the amount already taxed at the time of sale was unconstitutional.

2. The appellant contended that the impugned order was unsustainable in law, citing binding judicial precedents from the Tribunal and High Court. The appellant had paid the service tax under Authorised Service Station service and Business Auxiliary Service, along with interest, before the show-cause notice was issued.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records and decisions relied upon by the appellant. It was observed that the appellant had indeed paid the service tax along with interest well before the show-cause notice was issued, falling under the purview of Section 73(3) read with Explanation 2 of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. Referring to the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal emphasized that once the service tax along with interest is paid before the issuance of a show-cause notice, the Department should refrain from issuing such a notice. Citing precedents, including a Tribunal decision following the Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal concluded that penalties cannot be imposed if the service tax is paid before the show-cause notice is issued.

5. Based on the above analysis and the legal principles established by the precedents, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable in law regarding the imposition of penalties under various provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore reviewed an appeal challenging the Commissioner(Appeals) order upholding the Order-in-Original and rejecting the appellant's appeal. The appellant, involved in servicing Bajaj vehicles, raised concerns about double taxation due to service tax demands on amounts already taxed at the time of sale. The Tribunal found that the appellant had paid the service tax along with interest before the show-cause notice was issued, aligning with Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Citing judicial precedents, including decisions from the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal ruled that penalties cannot be imposed if the service tax is paid before the issuance of a show-cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, favoring the appellant.

← Previous Next →