2018 (3) TMI 1673 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of service tax - fact of payment of service tax by the appellant not being evidenced by TR 6 Challans for verification by the Jurisdictional Service Tax Officers - principles of natural justice - Held that - Since the issue involved in the present appeal is only with reference to non-payment of Service Tax through TR6 Challans for verification by the Jurisdictional Officer we find that cannot be the basis for again demanding the amount which was already remitted by the appellant though by book adjustment centrally as per the mandate of their respective department which was also accepted by CBEC - demand cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over payment of service tax not evidenced by TR 6 Challans for verification by Service Tax Officers.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Government organization, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, dated 13/05/2014, regarding the payment of service tax amounting to ?2.03 Crs for the period 2007-2008 to November 2012. The dispute revolved around the lack of TR 6 Challans as evidence of payment, although the tax liability was not contested.

2. The show cause notice alleged improper payment of service tax through book transfer, leading to the initiation of proceedings. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel and the Revenue's representative presented their arguments, and the appeal records were examined.

3. The guidelines issued by the Department of Post mandated the payment of service tax by the appellant. Correspondence and instructions highlighted that book adjustment between different Central Government departments was an accepted method of service tax discharge. An office memorandum dated 14/03/2013 from CBEC clarified the remittance method for various Central Government departments, including the appellant.

4. The Tribunal noted that the issue centered on the absence of TR 6 Challans for verification by the Jurisdictional Officer. However, considering that the appellant had remitted the amount through book adjustment as per their department's mandate, which was acknowledged by CBEC, the demand for payment based on the lack of TR 6 Challans was deemed unsustainable.

5. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the demand raised due to non-submission of TR 6 Challans could not be upheld based on the accepted method of payment through book adjustment as per departmental guidelines.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, relevant guidelines, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the order and allow the appeal.