2018 (8) TMI 626 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - parking charges - whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the parking charges collected by the appellant as Authorized Service Station during the period 2008-09 to 2011.12? - extended period of limitation. Held that - Demand upto 30.04.2011 confirmed in view of the amendment in the definition of Authorized Service Station under Clause (zo) of sub-Section (105) of Section 65 of the Act. No case for invocation of extended period of limitation is made out - the demand for extended period - The demand of duty for the normal period after 1.5.2011 upheld - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax on parking charges collected by the appellant as an "Authorized Service Station" from 2008-09 to 2011-12.

Analysis:
The appellant, registered under the categories of "Authorised Service Station Service" and "Business Auxiliary Services," collected parking charges from customers during 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. The Department alleged non-payment of service tax on these charges, leading to a show cause notice for demanding service tax duty, interest, and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act.

The appellant contended that the parking charges were for safe custody of vehicles left beyond the stipulated time after servicing, not falling under any taxable service. The show cause notice was adjudicated confirming the demand, imposing penalties, and directing computation of service tax liability due to an amendment in the definition of "Authorized Service Station." The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and penalties, stating that car parking did not fall under services provided by an authorized service station.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, arguing against the extended period for the show cause notice, emphasizing proper maintenance of records, regular tax filings, and absence of suppression or misrepresentation. The Revenue Audit found all relevant information in the books of accounts, and the appellant had paid taxes regularly. The Tribunal considered the contentions and decided to set aside the demand for the extended period but upheld the demand for duty for the normal period after May 1, 2011.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties and ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the extended period demand. The appellant was granted consequential benefits as per the law, with the operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court.