2018 (7) TMI 94 - AT - Service Tax

Interest liability of ₹ 41,866/- allegedly on account of security deposit being treated as value of taxable service on which service tax is required to be discharged immediately - Belated payment of service tax - Mandap Keeper Service - Department took the view that the service tax liability should have been discharged by the 5th of the succeeding month following the calendar month in which payments are received, which were done belatedly by the appellants - applicability of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that - The service tax was required to be paid only on the value of service attributable to the relevant month of quarter - In the instant case, appellants have paid the service tax liability in the next month immediately after the preceding month. There cannot be any interest liability in respect of security deposit to the extent of ₹ 41,866/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of service tax liability on advance amounts and security deposits in the context of 'Mandap Keeper Service' provided by the appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants were engaged in providing 'Mandap Keeper Service' and collected advance amounts categorized as 'General Fund' and 'Temporary Receipt.' They paid service tax only after providing the service, leading to a dispute regarding the refundable security deposit collected at the time of booking. The security deposit was collected to safeguard against damages to the property, with the balance refunded after settlement of accounts post-function. The appellants contended that service tax was paid in the quarter when the amount was collected, as per the rules prevailing during the dispute period (April 2005 to September 2007).

The Department argued that service tax should have been paid by the 5th of the succeeding month after receiving payments, which the appellants did belatedly. A show cause notice demanded service tax, interest, and penalties. The original authority confirmed tax and interest but dropped penalties. The appellants appealed on the interest demand related to the security deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the current appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate highlighted that service tax was paid promptly for advance amounts and the balance collected for the service. The advocate referenced the rules in force during the dispute period, emphasizing compliance with the payment timelines. The advocate pointed out the specific rule regarding service tax payment concerning the value of service attributable to the relevant month or quarter.

The appellant disputed the interest liability on the security deposit, agreeing to the interest on rentals. The Tribunal noted the rule in force until September 2007 and ruled that interest liability on the security deposit was not justified. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified the service tax liability on advance amounts and security deposits for the 'Mandap Keeper Service,' emphasizing compliance with the rules prevailing during the disputed period and ruling in favor of the appellants regarding the interest liability on the security deposit.