2022 (11) TMI 500 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Swatch Bharat Cess - rent-a-cab service, common input services or not - legal consultancy services - Management Consultancy Services - reverse charge mechanism - penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant have maintained proper records of the transactions and the issue is wholly interpretational in nature. Further, the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 73(3) as they have deposited the amount demanded pursuant to audit on 07.01.2020, which is prior to issue of show cause notice. The Revenue have not calculated and pointed out the interest payable by the appellant. Further, such amount of interest has been immediately deposited upon receipt of the show cause notice before the adjudication order. The penalty under Section 78 is not imposable - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on various input services.
2. Irregular credits taken by the appellant.
3. Show cause notice issued for demand of service tax, interest, and penalty.
4. Adjudication of the show cause notice.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 78.
6. Appeal against the penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking providing IT services, received various input services subject to service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Irregular credits were taken by the appellant, leading to a demand for payment under Rule 6(3) for specific services like 'rent-a-cab service,' legal consultancy services, maintenance service, and 'Management Consultancy Services.'

2. A show cause notice was issued proposing a demand for service tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant acknowledged the tax demand, deposited the amount, and paid the interest under Section 75. However, the appellant did not pay the interest applicable under Section 75 initially.

3. The show cause notice was adjudicated, confirming the demand and imposing a penalty under Section 78. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, upholding the penalty due to the alleged suppression of facts and non-payment of interest under Section 75.

4. The appellant argued that under Section 73(3), they had paid the demanded amount before the show cause notice was served, entitling them to benefit from the provision. The appellant contended that no penalty should be imposed as the issue was interpretational, not involving suppression.

5. The Tribunal considered the appellant's compliance with Section 73(3), noting that the amount demanded was paid before the show cause notice. It was observed that the interest payable by the appellant was not calculated by the Revenue initially but was promptly deposited upon receiving the show cause notice.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 78 was not imposable, as the appellant had maintained proper records, paid the demanded amount before the notice, and promptly settled the interest upon notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the penalty was also revoked, allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcome.

← Previous Next →