2024 (5) TMI 562 - AT - Service Tax

Invocation of extended period for confirming the demand - only basis on which the SCN was issued was on account of finding discrepancy between the ST3 Returns and the ITR - exemption under Entry No. 47(i) - HELD THAT - The Department has not taken up any detailed investigation or verification for issuing the SCN for the extended period. The only basis on which the SCN was issued was on account of finding discrepancy between the ST3 Returns and the ITR. In view of this method adopted by the Revenue, the Appellant was not even put to proper notice towards the allegations wherein an amount of over Rs.4.65 Crores was demanded - there are force in the Appellant s submission that they had bonafide belief that no Service Tax is payable. Admittedly, there is no evidence brought in by the Revenue that they were charging Service Tax on their clients. All these factual details clarify that the Department has not brought in any evidence to the effect that the extended period can be invoked. Accordingly, the confirmed demand for the extended period is required to be set aside on account of limitation itself. Therefore, the Impugned Order is set aside on account of limitation. Exemption under Entry No. 47(i) - HELD THAT - There are force in the Appellant s argument that the services provided form part of exemption under Entry No. 47(i) - it is also found that there is an entry at S.No. 45 of the Notification No. 25/2012, where services by way of admission to a museum, national park, wildlife sanctuary, tiger reserve or zoo, etc., are fully exempt. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the invocation of the extended period for confirming the demand and the merits of the case concerning the exemption under specific entries of the Notification No. 25/2012.

Extended Period Invocation:
The Appellant, a Registered Service Tax Assessee, received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for the period 2016-17 based on discrepancies between ST3 Returns and Income Tax Returns (ITR), leading to a demand of Rs.4,65,39,221. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a reduced amount of Rs.79,84,647 for sound and light entry tickets. The Appellant argued that they had a bona fide belief in not needing to pay Service Tax and had properly recorded taxable and exempted services. The Tribunal found that the Department lacked evidence to invoke the extended period, set aside the demand on limitation grounds, and noted the lack of evidence of charging Service Tax to clients, leading to the Impugned Order being set aside.

Merits of the Case - Exemption Claim:
The Appellant contended that their services fell under Entry No. 47(i) of the Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, covering exhibition services like cinematographic films, circus, dance, or theatrical performances. Additionally, they argued potential eligibility for exemption under S.No. 45 of the same Notification, which exempts services related to admission to specific sites like museums, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the merit of the Appellant's argument, allowed the appeal without delving into the specifics of the exemption entries due to the decision on limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on account of limitation. The Appellant may be entitled to consequential relief as per the law.