Defects in Display: Unpacking the Tribunal's Verdict on Service Tax

[Kamal Aggarwal]

The modus operandi of the Service tax department continues to raise eyebrows, often resulting in public scrutiny of its practices. In a recent ruling by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, [2024 (1) TMI 1161 - CESTAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner to dismiss a Service tax demand due to defects in the show cause notice. While it's not uncommon for the Tribunal to support the Commissioner's actions in such cases, what's truly remarkable is the fact that the Committee of Commissioners brought this matter to the Tribunal in the first place, thus bringing the department's functioning into public view.

The show cause notice aimed to levy a demand of approximately Rs. 387 crores on a public sector undertaking, citing discrepancies between the turnover reported in financial statements and Service tax returns. However, the Tribunal has repeatedly rejected such arguments in similar cases. In this instance, the notice compared Service tax returns for a six-month period with financial statements of a full twelve month period and that too from a different fiscal year, compounding the error. Moreover, despite varying effective Service tax rates ranging from 1.545% to 12.36%, the notice sought to apply the highest rate across the board. Additionally, the values used in the notice, based on both the Service tax returns and financial statements, were incorrect.

It's evident that such a flawed notice deserved to be dismissed, as rightly done by the Commissioner. Ideally, the matter should have concluded there, with the department's flawed practices remaining internal. However, the Committee of Commissioners chose to escalate the issue by appealing to the Tribunal.

Challenging a decision that had already acknowledged significant flaws in the initial proceedings appears counterproductive, raising doubts about the judgment and decision-making processes within the Committee of Commissioners. Regrettably, this unnecessary appeal not only had minimal chances of success but also exposed the flaws to the public eye, thereby tarnishing the reputation of the regulatory body and undermining trust in its effectiveness.