2018 (12) TMI 1111 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - penalty - Rate of tax - commercial coaching and training service - Contention of the department is that the appellant have collected advance amount towards coaching and training service whereas in the middle of the course session the service tax rate was revised from 8% to 10.2% - Held that - The issue involved is interpretation of law that whether the service tax rate is applicable on the date of receipt of advance or on the date of providing the services - the issue being of interpretation of law, longer period of demand cannot be invoked, hence the demand for the extended period was set aside. The demand for extended period and corresponding penalty will not sustain on limitation itself - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of law regarding the applicability of service tax rate on the date of receipt of advance or on the date of providing services; imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78; invocation of longer period of demand for tax recovery.

Analysis:
The case involved a coaching and education training center that was found to have short paid service tax during a specific period. The discrepancy arose due to the revision of the service tax rate from 8% to 10.2% in the middle of the course session. The tax authorities demanded the differential tax amount on a pro rata basis for the period after the rate increase and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78.

The appellant contended that they correctly paid the service tax at the rate applicable on the date of receipt of advance, citing judgments from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Tribunal. Additionally, they argued that the demand was time-barred as it involved an interpretation of law, referencing various judgments supporting their stance.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal upheld the demand for a smaller amount while setting aside the demand for the larger sum. The Tribunal ruled that the issue of the applicable service tax rate was a matter of interpretation of law, and as such, the longer period of demand could not be invoked. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for the extended period and the corresponding penalty were not sustainable on limitation grounds. The penalty related to the smaller demand was also set aside under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by upholding a smaller demand, setting aside the demand for the extended period and corresponding penalty, and canceling the penalty related to the smaller demand. The decision was made without delving into the merits of the case, focusing primarily on the interpretation of law and the limitation aspect.