2017 (1) TMI 433 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services - commission received from banks and financial institutions for promoting the loans on offer from these institutions, sales incentives and referral incentives of insurance companies - Held that - there was never an intention to evade tax. It was also contended that the total dues had been discharged by 15th March 2016 and the interest liability also been remitted to the revenue of the Central Government - the taxability of the said services under business auxiliary service had attained finality only after reference to a Larger Bench indicating the doubts that persisted about leviability - this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and set aside the penalties - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against service tax liability, applicability of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, interpretation of provisions of section 65 of Finance Act, 1994, invocation of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved an appeal by M/s Arpanna Automobiles Pvt Ltd against an order confirming service tax liability amounting to &8377; 46,63,561/- for the period from July 2003 to March 2006. The tax liability was imposed on commission received from banks, financial institutions, sales incentives, and referral incentives of insurance companies. The order-in-original also imposed penalties of &8377; 13,000/- under section 77 and &8377; 46,63,561/- under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal heard arguments from the Chartered Accountant for the appellant and the Examining Officer for the respondent.

In the judgment, the Tribunal referred to an earlier appeal of M/s Arpanna Automobiles Pvt Ltd where the tax liability on similar issues was upheld based on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Centre v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Chartered Accountant for the appellant acknowledged the applicability of this decision to the present dispute, emphasizing that the issue was about the interpretation of the provisions of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was argued that there was no intention to evade tax, and all dues had been paid by a specified date, including interest liability remitted to the Central Government.

Considering the circumstances and the doubts surrounding the taxability of the services under 'business auxiliary service' until a reference to a Larger Bench, the Tribunal invoked the provisions of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. As a result, the penalties imposed under sections 77 and 78 were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in that regard. The cross-objection filed by the Revenue was also disposed of by the Tribunal. The judgment was pronounced in court on 09/12/2016.