2019 (9) TMI 178 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - Liability of service tax - Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service - Storage and Warehousing Service - Packing Services Goods Transport Agency Service - HELD THAT - The contentions raised by the appellant relates to the factual verification, which cannot be done at the level of the Tribunal. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - In the absence of any evidence to the contrary indicating any mala fide on the part of the assessee, the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. However, a part of the demand falls within the limitation period and as such, we have not given any findings on merits on the ground of factual verification. The matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority to deal with the merits of the case for the period falling within the limitation and to re-decide the same after taking into consideration the appellant s contention - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Discrepancies in service tax payments based on Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns.
2. Confirmation of demand for service tax and penalty imposition.
3. Grounds raised by the appellant challenging the demand.
4. Applicability of extended period for demand and penalty.
5. Distinction between C&F Agent service and GTA services.
6. Time-barred demand and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The case involved discrepancies in service tax payments by the appellant based on Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns. A show cause notice was issued proposing a demand of ?3,79,95,386 for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, but only a part of the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty imposition under the Finance Act.

2. The appellant challenged the demand on various grounds. They argued that transportation charges for certain services were exempt from service tax under specific notifications. They also contended that liability for service tax on GTA services was on the recipient, not the appellant. The appellant disputed the demand under different tables citing specific details for each service provided.

3. The appellant further argued that they were not functioning as C&F Agents as described in the Board's Circular, as they did not fulfill the conditions outlined for C&F Agents. They also contended that the demand for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17 under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service' was invalid due to the non-existence of this category from 01.07.2012.

4. Regarding the extended period for demand and penalty, the appellant claimed that the demand was time-barred as they had not concealed any information from the department. They argued that the demand was based on their Balance Sheet and ST-3 Returns, and any interpretation issue regarding the nature of services provided did not warrant the invocation of the extended period.

5. The distinction between C&F Agent service and GTA services was crucial in the case. The appellant emphasized that they were not providing C&F Agent services as they were not involved in clearance work but only transportation and related activities. They contended that the demand under the category of C&F Agent service could not be sustained.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the absence of evidence indicating mala fide intentions on the part of the appellant. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for re-decision within the limitation period, considering the appellant's contentions and providing them with an opportunity to present their case.

← Previous Next →