2010 (3) TMI 347 - AT - Service Tax

Refund-Limitation- Goods Transport Agency Service-Penalty- the appellants have paid service tax on the entire amount of transport charges as they were not aware regarding the exemption available under Notification No. 32/2004 which restricted service tax to 25% of the transport charges subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Held that- the departmental authorities should have properly guided the appellants at the time of their paying the ser vice tax amount. In the absence of proper legal advice, the appellants have ended up paying an amount of Rs. 16,34,821/-instead of paying one-fourth of the same. The interest on the tax amount payable comes to about Rs. 40,000/- and the tax amount and interest together would be less than Rs. 5 lakhs. Since much more than the amount due has already been paid by the appellants and the authorities below have held it to be a case not fit for imposition of penalty, do not find the demand of further interest from the appellants justified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Issues:
1. Applicability of service tax on transport of sugarcane.
2. Awareness of exemption under Notification No. 32/2004.
3. Refund claim rejection on grounds of time bar.
4. Proper guidance by departmental authorities.
5. Imposition of interest and penalty.

Analysis:

1. Applicability of service tax on transport of sugarcane:
The appellants argued that they were not initially aware of the service tax liability on the transport of sugarcane, considering it to be an agricultural produce. Upon realization, they paid service tax on the entire transport charges, as they were unaware of the exemption provided under Notification No. 32/2004, limiting the service tax to 25% of the transport charges. The tribunal acknowledged the lack of awareness and the subsequent payment made by the appellants.

2. Awareness of exemption under Notification No. 32/2004:
The counsel for the appellant highlighted that the transporters of sugarcane were not registered with the service tax department, precluding the possibility of claiming credit for the service provided by unregistered transporters. The appellants, realizing their error, filed a refund claim for the excess tax paid. The tribunal noted the discrepancy in the tax amount paid by the appellants in comparison to the actual liability under the exemption, emphasizing the need for proper guidance from the authorities.

3. Refund claim rejection on grounds of time bar:
Although the refund claim was filed late, the appellants contended that they were only required to pay tax on 25% of the transport charges, significantly less than the amount paid. The tribunal considered the interest amount and the total liability, concluding that the demand for interest confirmed under the impugned order was unjustified due to the excess amount already paid by the appellants.

4. Proper guidance by departmental authorities:
The tribunal criticized the departmental authorities for failing to provide adequate guidance to the appellants regarding the correct tax liability at the time of payment. The absence of proper legal advice led to the appellants overpaying the tax amount, resulting in a situation where the interest and tax combined were substantially less than the total amount paid.

5. Imposition of interest and penalty:
Given the circumstances of the case, where the appellants had already paid significantly more than the actual liability, the tribunal found the demand for further interest unwarranted. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, indicating that the case was not deemed fit for the imposition of a penalty.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of awareness of tax exemptions, the necessity of proper guidance from authorities, and the consideration of actual tax liability to prevent overpayment by taxpayers.

← Previous Next →