2013 (12) TMI 1072 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - Service Tax Registration in case of GTA Service not obtained - Held that - Applicant has placed a copy of the Registration and its amendment for incorporation of GTA Service, and the Registration was granted by the Superintendent, Range-IV, Durgapur-III Division. It was their understanding that once the Registration is taken by the Head Office and since the billing and accounting were done at the said Head Office, they had complied with the requirement of taking the Registration by the Head Office - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for not obtaining Service Tax Registration in case of GTA Service.

Analysis:
The Applicant filed an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for not obtaining Service Tax Registration in case of GTA Service. The Applicant contended that they had obtained Registration for maintenance and repair services on 28.10.2004, and later sought incorporation of GTA Services on 17.10.2005. They claimed to have regularly filed Service Tax Returns for GTA Services to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Durgapur-III Division, who assessed the Returns without objection. The Applicant argued that they had complied with the registration requirement by obtaining it at the Head Office, where billing and accounting were done. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, referred to the Commissioner (Appeals) Order stating that the Applicant obtained Service Tax Registration on 02.07.2009, indicating non-compliance before providing GTA Services.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted the dispute of not obtaining Service Tax Registration for GTA Services. The Applicant presented a copy of the Registration and its amendment for GTA Service incorporation, granted by the Superintendent, Range-IV, Durgapur-III Division. The Applicant's argument was based on the understanding that obtaining Registration at the Head Office sufficed, as billing and accounting were centralized there. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. Consequently, the Stay Petition was allowed, and the penalty waiver was granted.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with Service Tax Registration requirements, particularly in cases involving different types of services under the same entity. It emphasizes the need for clear communication and documentation regarding service categories covered under the Registration to avoid disputes and penalties. The decision underscores the Tribunal's discretion in granting penalty waivers based on prima facie evidence of compliance efforts by the Applicant, even if there were initial registration discrepancies.