2017 (6) TMI 280 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of order of CESTAT remanding the order - whether the petitioner was liable to pay service tax on the value of SIM cards sold to the subscribers or not? - Held that - The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the petitioner s case IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATION LTD. Versus CCE. & C. COCHIN 2011 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and therefore held that the petitioner was liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal however held that the extended period of limitation is not invokable - It is for the assessing authority to ascertain whether there were any taxable services or not - matter rightly remanded - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal remanding matter for re-quantification of service tax demand on SIM cards sold.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, which remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand of service tax payable by the petitioner. The Tribunal had to determine whether the petitioner was liable to pay service tax on the value of SIM cards sold to subscribers. Referring to a prior Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was indeed liable to pay service tax. However, it held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, setting aside the demand for the extended period and associated penalties. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the service tax demand along with interest. The Tribunal emphasized that since the respondent had not collected any service tax from the SIM card subscribers, the value of SIM cards sold should be deemed as cum tax price, necessitating re-quantification of the taxable services provided by the petitioner.

The High Court observed that the Tribunal's decision was limited to remanding the matter for re-quantification of the taxable services provided by the petitioner. The responsibility lay with the assessing authority to determine the existence of taxable services. The High Court found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order at that stage, emphasizing that all contentions of the parties remained open. Consequently, the petition challenging the Tribunal's order was disposed of by the High Court.