2024 (4) TMI 33 - AT - Service Tax

Providing Services to SEZ unit - Benefit of exemption of Service Tax under N/N. 12/2013 dated 01.07.2013 based on Form A2 issued by the jurisdictional officer - non-submission of the mandatory forms - period of dispute is April 2016 to March 2017 - HELD THAT - As seen from the Notification, the declaration in Form A1 is submitted by the SEZ unit and based on this declaration, the Form A2 is issued which in turn is given to the non-SEZ service providers to avail the benefit of Service Tax exemption. From the records placed, it is seen that Form A2 is issued by the jurisdictional officer to M/s. Cisco Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. The appellant is eligible for the benefit of exemption of Service Tax based on this Form A2 issued by the jurisdictional officer. Therefore, the impugned order denying the benefit of exemption for non-production of Form A1 by the appellant is irrelevant. Since Form A2 is issued based on Form A1, Form A2 being available, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-submission of Forms A1/A2 for Service Tax exemption.
2. Eligibility for Service Tax exemption based on available documentation.

Summary:

Non-submission of Forms A1/A2 for Service Tax exemption:
The appellant, M/s. Goodagile India Pvt. Ltd., provided services to SEZ units without payment of Service Tax u/s Notification No. 40/2012-ST and No. 12/2013-ST. During April 2016 to March 2017, they failed to submit Forms A1/A2. The original authority confirmed a demand of Service Tax of Rs. 7,37,420/- with interest and a penalty of Rs. 73,742/- u/s 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Eligibility for Service Tax exemption based on available documentation:
The appellant argued that they submitted Form A2 and SEZ certificates but could not submit Form A1 as it was not available to the SEZ units. They maintained that services were rendered to SEZ units, and Form A2 demonstrated receipt and use for authorized operations. The appellant received remittance from SEZ units, which was undisputed. They contended that since Form A2 was on record, denying the exemption benefit was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that Form A2 is issued based on Form A1 and found that the appellant was eligible for the exemption based on the available Form A2.

Judgment:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the benefit of exemption could not be denied due to the non-production of Form A1 when Form A2 was available. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.