2014 (4) TMI 37 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - outdoor catering service - Adjudicating Authority failed to correlate records with the service tax returns, and amount shown towards outdoor catering with the TISCO - Held that - It is a case where the actual liability of service tax payable has not been considered by both the authorities. In the absence of that, matter needs examination at the end of the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of ST3 returns provided by the Respondent as well as the books of accounts and thereafter to arrive at a decision in accordance with law - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order setting aside demand of service tax
- Failure to consider actual liability of service tax
- Remand for fresh adjudication

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order setting aside the demand of service tax proposed in a show-cause notice. The respondent, maintaining a canteen with Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), received remuneration for outdoor catering services. The revenue found that a specific amount pertained to the services provided, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice for the service tax demand. The respondent contested the liability, claiming to have paid the service tax on the services provided and received payment. However, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand based on the amount shown as outdoor catering, without correlating it with the service tax returns and TISCO records. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, noting that the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the facts presented by the respondent. The appellate tribunal highlighted that the actual liability of service tax payable was not properly considered by both authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to examine the ST3 returns provided by the respondent and their books of accounts to determine the liability in accordance with the law. The impugned order was set aside to allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to present their case during the fresh adjudication process.