2018 (12) TMI 250 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - Rent-a-cab service - demand of service tax - penalty - Held that - In view of the N/N. 6/2014, for the period from 11.07.2014 the demand is sustainable - in view of litigation going-on, on the issue, there is no element of suppression involved and therefore, the demand for the extended period of limitation up to 24.03.2014 is set aside. Also, from the period from 25.03.2014 to 11.07.2014 levy was exempted under the said Mega Notification. Penalty - Held that - Since the demand during the extended period of limitation is not sustainable, the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of "Rent-a-Cab Service" for providing air-conditioned cars to Government Departments, applicability of extended period of limitation, exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012, amendment through Notification No.6/2014, sustainability of demand, penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

The appeal addressed the issue of whether providing air-conditioned cars to Government Departments constitutes "Rent-a-Cab Service," leading to a demand of &8377; 39,75,999 for the period from 2010-11 to 2014-15. The demand was raised using the extended period of limitation, which was contested due to ongoing disputes regarding the taxability of vehicles with drivers. The matter was resolved by referencing a ruling from the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court. The appellant argued that the extended period should not apply as the matter required interpretation, and the show cause notice was issued on 24.09.2015. It was determined that the demand was sustainable from 11.07.2014, following an amendment in Notification No.6/2014. The exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 was applicable from 25.03.2014 to 10.07.2014, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Tribunal considered submissions from both sides and concluded that the demand was sustainable from 11.07.2014 onwards, with no suppression involved during the litigations. The demand for the extended period up to 24.03.2014 was set aside, as the levy was exempted under the Mega Notification for the period from 25.03.2014 to 10.07.2014. Consequently, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was also set aside. The judgment clarified that for the period prior to 24.03.2014, the demand was set aside due to the extended period, while for the subsequent periods, the demand was determined based on the applicable notifications. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief.