2018 (12) TMI 264 - AT - Service Tax

Time limitation - Tour operator/business auxiliary service - amount received towards luggage collection, driver batta and casual contract and also received commission towards hotel booking, luggage collection hotel booking, luggage collection, driver batta and casual contract during the period 2004-05 - non-payment of service tax - Held that - The appellant is a State Government undertaking which is engaged in providing various taxable services and after the audit, the appellant themselves computed the tax liability and paid the Service Tax of ₹ 1,46,390/- on 25th March 2006 whereas the SCN was issued on 16th January 2008 much beyond the period of one year - the appellants have not suppressed any material fact with intent to evade payment of tax. Revenue has wrongly invoked the extended period of 5 years which is only applicable in the case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of provision with intent to evade payment of Service Tax whereas in the present case, there is no material to hold that there was an intention on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of Service Tax. On merits also, the appellant has a good case but since we are allowing the appeal on limitation itself, we need not go to the merits of the case - the entire demand is barred by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) and upholding of Order-in-Original by Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax.
- Applicability of Service Tax on received amounts under 'tour operator/business auxiliary service.'
- Demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalties imposed.
- Invocation of extended period of limitation for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN).
- Allegations of suppression of facts and intent to evade payment of Service Tax.
- Legal precedents and interpretations regarding limitation period and intention to evade tax.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A) and the upholding of the Order-in-Original by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax. The dispute revolved around the applicability of Service Tax on amounts received by the appellant for various services under the category of 'tour operator/business auxiliary service.' The original authority confirmed a demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalties, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the Commissioner (A).

The main contention raised by the appellant was that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not properly appreciate the facts and the law. The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation and that the Revenue wrongly invoked the extended period of 5 years without evidence of fraud or intent to evade tax. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their claim that no mala fide intentions could be attributed to Government bodies like them.

The appellant also relied on judicial decisions to argue that the demand made prior to the issuance of the SCN was beyond the one-year limitation period and was therefore time-barred. The appellant emphasized that they promptly paid the Service Tax upon realizing their liability, even before the SCN was issued. The appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade tax on their part.

In contrast, the Revenue defended the impugned order. After considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was indeed barred by limitation and that there was no evidence of suppression of facts or intent to evade tax by the appellant. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents and previous decisions to support their decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

In the final judgment pronounced on 04/12/2018, the Tribunal held that the entire demand was barred by limitation and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the invocation of the extended limitation period and the absence of any intent to evade payment of Service Tax by the appellant.