9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1526 - AT - Service TaxBusiness auxiliary services - sale of goods to M/s. Amar Products on commission basis - Circular no. 59/8/2003 dated20.06.2003, 62/11/2003-ST(F.No. B3/7/2003) dated 21.08.2003 and B/2/8/2004-TRU dated 10.09.2004 - Time bar - Held that - There is no dispute on the facts that the appellant in his individual capacity has provided services to M/s. Amar Products and was not having any commercial concern for undertaking the business in regular course. As such we find no infirmity in the views adopted by Commissioner (A) or the original adjudicating authority which is based upon boards circular and the precedent decisions. Time bar - Held that - during the relevant period there was a lot of confusion. All the activities undertaken by the appellant were a part of the reflection made in the balance sheet and income tax return in which case no suppression or malafide can be attributed to the assessee. No malafides could be proved by Revenue - the extended period would not be available to the Revenue. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of Revenue's appeal by Commissioner (A) | Interpretation of Business Auxiliary Services definition | Time bar issue | Application of CBEC circulars | Extended period under section 73 Interpretation of Business Auxiliary Services definition: The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of service tax on services provided by an individual to a company on a commission basis. The original adjudicating authority held that as the individual was not operating under a commercial concern, he would not be covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Services. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, citing CBEC circulars and judgments to support the view that individuals providing services without a commercial establishment would not be taxable prior to 01.05.2006. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in this view, emphasizing that the individual's services were provided in his individual capacity without a commercial concern, thus not falling under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Services. Time bar issue: The Commissioner (A) further addressed the time bar issue, stating that the extended period under section 73 was not applicable as the respondent had a genuine belief that the services provided were not taxable based on CBEC circulars and tribunal judgments. The Commissioner held that the issue involved interpretation of legal provisions and information already disclosed in statutory documents, thus ruling in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal concurred with this decision, noting that no malafide intent or suppression was evident on the part of the respondent during the relevant period. Application of CBEC circulars: Both the lower authorities based their decisions on CBEC circulars, specifically circular no. 59/8/2003, 62/11/2003-ST, and B/2/8/2004-TRU. These circulars clarified the scope of services not subject to service tax when provided by individuals without a commercial establishment. The Tribunal found no dispute that the appellant had provided services in his individual capacity without a commercial concern, aligning with the principles outlined in the CBEC circulars. Extended period under section 73: The Commissioner (A) and the Tribunal agreed that the extended period under section 73 was not applicable in this case, as the respondent had a genuine belief based on legal interpretations and disclosed information. The Tribunal emphasized that no evidence of malafide intent or suppression was presented by the Revenue, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar appeal by the Revenue had been rejected, further supporting the decision to uphold the lower authorities' findings. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities based on the interpretation of Business Auxiliary Services definition, time bar considerations, application of CBEC circulars, and the inapplicability of the extended period under section 73. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal interpretations, genuine beliefs, and the absence of malafide intent in determining the tax liability in such cases.
|
