2022 (6) TMI 710 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - digging of borewell for the farmer/ agriculturist for the purpose of irrigation - exemption from Service tax or not - HELD THAT - The ground raised by the Revenue in the RoM application that the appellant assessee had produced some new documentary evidences before the Tribunal in support of their appeal, whereas the first Appellate Authority has categorically mentioned that apart from four affidavits from four farmers, value of service being Rs.3,18,000/-, nothing was produced before the Court below. The present rectification of mistake application is without merit and is in the nature of an attempt to seek view of the final order of this Tribunal, which is not permissible. Accordingly, this rectification of mistake application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the Final Order
2. Exemption under Section 66D(d)(i) for digging of borewell for agricultural purposes
3. Sufficiency of evidence to support exemption claim
4. Interpretation of "Agriculture Operations"
5. Relevance of documentary evidence in supporting the exemption claim
6. Dismissal of rectification of mistake application

Analysis:

1. The issue in this case pertains to the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 07.03.2022 concerning Service Tax Appeal No. 50424 of 2021 (SM). The Revenue filed an application seeking rectification of the said mistake.

2. The primary issue before the Commissioner was whether the digging of a borewell for farmers/agriculturists for irrigation purposes qualified for exemption under Section 66D(d)(i). Initially, the demand was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority based on various factors, including the lack of TDS deduction, direct provision of services to farmers, and exemption under Section 66D(d)(i).

3. The Revenue, being dissatisfied, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in favor of the Revenue, citing insufficiency of evidence such as payment receipts and certificates from farmers. The appeal confirmed the duty and penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the assessee, including land records, farmer affidavits, certificates from the Sarpanch, and bank certificates confirming the status of the service receivers as farmers. The Tribunal found the evidence to be credible and noted the arbitrary rejection of evidence by the lower court.

5. The Revenue contended in the rectification of mistake application that new documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal, contrary to the findings of the first Appellate Authority. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving Shree Shyam Baba Borewell, where the activity was deemed exempt from service tax.

6. After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal concluded that the rectification of mistake application lacked merit and was an attempt to challenge the Tribunal's final order, which was impermissible. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, evidence considerations, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the rectification of mistake application in the context of the exemption for digging borewells for agricultural purposes under Section 66D(d)(i).