2016 (1) TMI 851 - AT - Service Tax

Classification - Activity of arrangement for dispatch and transportation of goods to various destinations as per the directions of the service recipient - clearing and forwarding agent service - bona fide belief - Extended period of limitation - Held that - as per the activities performed by the appellant, it is squarely covered within the definition of clearing and forwarding agent and it provided service to a client in relation to clearing and forwarding operations. Extended period of limitation - Bona fides belief is not a hallucinatory belief; it is a genuine belief of a reasonable person operating in an appropriate environment. When the terms of the agreement were so clear, any reasonable person operating in an appropriate environment would have no basis to entertain a belief that the service rendered by it in terms of the agreement cited above by any stretch of imagination would not be covered under the scope of clearing and forwarding agent service. Therefore the extended period has been rightly invoked. - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of service tax demand under clearing and forwarding agent service
- Applicability of extended period for invoking tax demand
- Adequacy of reasoning in the impugned order

Confirmation of service tax demand under clearing and forwarding agent service:
The appellant contended that they were not engaged in clearing goods from the factory, citing a judgment from Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellant acted as a clearing and forwarding agent by providing services like loading, unloading, and storing goods. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the parties, which clearly outlined the appellant's role as a clearing and forwarding agent. The Tribunal referred to the definitions under the Finance Act, 1994, and concluded that the appellant's activities fell within the scope of a clearing and forwarding agent. The Tribunal also discussed judgments from Punjab and Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court, emphasizing that the appellant's service was covered under the definition of a clearing and forwarding agent.

Applicability of extended period for invoking tax demand:
The appellant argued that they had a bona fide belief about their non-liability to service tax, thus the extended period should not be invoked. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the terms of the agreement clearly indicated the appellant's role as a clearing and forwarding agent. The Tribunal emphasized that a bona fide belief must be reasonable, and in this case, given the clarity of the agreement, the appellant's belief was untenable. Therefore, the extended period for invoking tax demand was deemed appropriate.

Adequacy of reasoning in the impugned order:
The appellant raised concerns about the reasoning in the impugned order, alleging inadequacy. The Tribunal clarified that even if the reasoning in the lower authorities' orders was insufficient, the appellate court could rely on transactional documents to reach a decision. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellate court was not bound by the reasoning of lower authorities and could use different reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no flaws in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the service tax demand under the clearing and forwarding agent service, invoked the extended period for tax demand, and addressed the adequacy of reasoning in the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 20.1.2016.