Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 457 - AT - Service TaxRenting of Immovable property - demand of service tax without giving credit of tax paid earlier - Held that - appellant had discharged the service tax liability as and when the rental income were received and the details of the challans for the payments made are available. - the demand of service tax on the entire amount without giving any credit for the payments already made is incorrect in law. It is also seen that the appellants have short paid the service tax on these heads in a few years namely October 2007 to March 2008, 2008-09 and 2010-11, and they have excess paid service tax in 2009-10, 2011-12 and April, 2012 to June 2012. The appellant has sought to adjust excess payment with the short payments. This is not permissible. - The excess payments have to be claimed by way of refund and short payments have to be made good by the appellant to the department as principles of unjust enrichment might be involved in any refund claim - Decided partly in favor of assessee. Business Auxiliary Service - The main dispute relates to incentive received from Maruti Suzuki Ltd. The appellant s claim is that this income is nothing but trade discount received by them which is in the nature of quantity discount and has been passed on to the appellant by Maruti Suzuki Ltd. by way of credit notes. - Held that - the appellant should be given a fair opportunity of producing these documents to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority with respect to their contention that these are nothing but trade discounts. - Matter remanded back for this aspect.
Issues:
Service tax demands under Business Auxiliary Service, Authorised Service Station, and Renting of Immovable Property. Analysis: 1. Renting of Immovable Property: The appellant had paid service tax on rents received, supported by challans. The net unpaid liability was &8377; 95,896, not &8377; 11,24,288 as confirmed. Adjustments between short payments and excess payments were not permissible. The matter was remitted for correct computation. 2. Authorised Service Station: The appellant partially discharged the service tax liability through Cenvat Credit and cash, but the Adjudicating Authority did not give due credit. The demand of &8377; 32,38,391 was reduced to &8377; 1,66,669 after adjustments. However, such adjustments were impermissible, and the matter was sent back for reevaluation. 3. Business Auxiliary Service: The appellant accepted liability on PDI charges but disputed miscellaneous income and incentives from Maruti Suzuki Ltd. The appellant claimed the incentives were trade discounts, not subject to service tax. Lack of evidence and consideration led to the matter being remanded for further examination. The appellant was given the opportunity to provide supporting documents, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to verify with Maruti Suzuki Ltd. authorities. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for all issues, and the stay petition was disposed of. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to reevaluate the service tax demands under each category, considering the evidence and submissions presented by the appellant.
|