2019 (1) TMI 1234 - AT - Service Tax

Broad Casting Services - appellant is earning revenue through SMS from cellular phone operators like M/s Reliance Cellular, Airtel, Hutch, Idea, BSNL - It is the case of the Revenue appellant is broadcasting running scroll at the bottom of the television screen which would fall under the category of broadcasting services - Held that - It can be seen that the taxable services which is contemplated in the provisions, is that broadcasting services would mean that said services needs to be rendered to a client, by a broadcasting agency or organization in relation to broadcasting, in any manner. In the case in hand, the appellant herein is not rendering any services to individuals who pay for SMS sent by them to telephone service providers - In the case in hand, the television service providers are only scrolling the numbers on which SMS needs to be sent and get paid from telephone services providers. The appellant has a case on limitation also in as much that the audit was conducted by the appellant premises, result was conveyed to the appellant by a letter dated 08.06.2007 indicating this point as one of the objections was raised by the audit party - the show cause notice was issued on 12.12.2008 despite the audit. On limitation also, the appeal succeeds. On merits as well as on limitation, the appeal succeeds - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of broadcasting services provided by the appellant.
2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Application of limitation period for the demand raised by the tax authorities.

Analysis:

1. Taxability of Broadcasting Services:
The case involved a dispute regarding the taxability of the broadcasting services provided by the appellant. The appellant contended that they were not rendering SMS services, which were provided by cellular phone operators, and that the revenue earned was shared as per agreements. The lower authorities had confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties. However, the appellant argued that the broadcasting services definition under Section 65(105)(zzzx) did not cover the activity for which they were paid by the cellular companies. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was earning revenue through scrolling advertisements on television screens, which was considered broadcasting services. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of broadcasting services under the Finance Act and concluded that the appellant's activity fell under this category. The Tribunal also considered the argument on limitation, noting that despite the audit revealing the non-payment of service tax, the show cause notice was issued later. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on both merits and limitation, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

2. Imposition of Penalties:
The tax authorities had imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant challenged these penalties, arguing that the demand itself was not justified due to the nature of services provided. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides and found that the penalties imposed were linked to the demand of service tax, which was set aside. Therefore, the penalties imposed under the impugned order were also set aside along with the demand.

3. Application of Limitation Period:
One of the key arguments raised by the appellant was regarding the application of the limitation period for the demand raised by the tax authorities. The appellant contended that the demand should be set aside due to the audit conducted earlier, which had highlighted the non-payment of service tax. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument on limitation, noting that the show cause notice was issued after the audit had already indicated the non-payment. Therefore, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the limitation aspect as well, further supporting the decision to set aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the appellant on the taxability of broadcasting services, imposition of penalties, and the application of the limitation period, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.