2024 (5) TMI 824 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption from service tax - services of laying, terrazzo flooring, Polishing and PVC Joint Strips to TATA Consultancy Ltd SEZ Park Pune - exemption was denied only for the reason that the Authorization (Form A2 ) bears the wrong address of Bangalore of the appellant - wrong address mentioned and afterwards was rectified - HELD THAT - The undisputed fact is that the said Form A2 has been rectified and accordingly, the correct address of the appellant was mentioned in the Form A2. Therefore, after rectification it is as if the correct address has always been there in A2 Form, moreover, if at all there is lapse, it is an inadvertent mistake in the form which was duly rectified. For this small lapse substantial benefit of Notification No. 12/2013 cannot be denied. This Tribunal time and again held that the services received in SEZ is otherwise exempted as per Section 26 (1e) of SEZ Act, 2005 itself and in terms of Section 51 thereof has overriding effect over any other law for time being in force, therefore, in view of the SEZ Act itself no service tax is leviable on the services received in SEZ - The present case is on much better footing that by rectifying the mistake in A2 Form, the condition of the Notification No 12/2013 has been correctly complied with. The appellant are indeed entitled for the exemption Notification No. 12/2013-ST. The impugned order is not sustainable, hence, the same is set aside - Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is the denial of exemption under Notification No. 12/2013-ST to the appellant for providing services to TATA Consultancy Ltd SEZ Park Pune without payment of service tax due to a mistake in Form A2 mentioning the wrong address of the appellant.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad considered the case where the appellant provided services to TATA Consultancy Ltd SEZ Park Pune without payment of service tax, claiming exemption under Notification No. 12/2013-ST. The issue arose due to a mistake in Form A2, which mentioned the wrong address of the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for service tax, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the mistake in Form A2 was rectified later, and therefore, the exemption should not have been denied. They cited various judgments to support their claim. On the other hand, the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the rectification of Form A2 corrected the address of the appellant. They emphasized that the small lapse in the form, which was rectified, should not result in denying the substantial benefit of Notification No. 12/2013. The Tribunal also highlighted that services received in SEZ are exempted under the SEZ Act, which has overriding effect over any other law. By rectifying the mistake in Form A2, the appellant complied with the conditions of the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the exemption and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2024.