2017 (9) TMI 1122 - AT - Service Tax

Stock-broker - liability of tax - transaction/turnover charges paid to stock exchanges and V-SAT Charges - Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant to tax turnover/transaction charges under the category of stock broker service and V-SAT charges under the category of leased circuit services - scope of SCN - Held that - the show cause notice discussed the scope of the tax entry of leased circuit services. The Service Tax demand was upheld in the impugned order, as a stock broker service holding that leased circuit services can be provided only by a Telegraph Authority - the impugned order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice and on that ground alone the demand confirmed cannot be sustained. The notice for demand was issued on 03.08.2010 covering the period of 01.01.2008 to 15.05.2008. Admittedly, the demand is a repeat demand in continuation of earlier demands on the same set of facts. It is by now a well settled principle of law that repeat show cause notices with same set of facts and legal position cannot be issued invoking suppression, fraud etc. to sustain a demand for extended period. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over liability on consideration received by the appellant for service tax purposes.
2. Taxation of V-SAT charges under leased circuit services or stock broker service.
3. Tax liability on transaction charges for a specific period.
4. Validity of repeat demands for the same set of facts.

Analysis:
1. The appeals dealt with the appellant's liability for service tax on certain considerations received. The Revenue initiated proceedings to tax turnover/transaction charges under "stock broker service" and V-SAT charges under "leased circuit services." The original authority confirmed the tax liabilities, which were upheld on appeal along with penalties.

2. In appeal Nos. ST/1839/2011 and ST/1840/2011, the dispute was regarding V-SAT charges proposed to be taxed under leased circuit services. The appellate authority held it should be taxed as stock broker service. The appellant argued that the confirmation of demand under a new tax entry not proposed in the notice was beyond the authority's scope. The Tribunal's decision supported that leased circuit services can only be provided by a "Telegraph authority," rendering the demand unsustainable.

3. Appeal No. ST/1837/2011 involved tax liability on transaction charges for April 2005 to November 2005. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision in their favor for the same period, indicating the demand should be allowed on merit and time bar grounds.

4. For appeal No. ST/1838/2011, the demand issued covering the period from 01.01.2008 to 15.05.2008 was challenged as a repeat demand based on the same facts. The Tribunal noted that repeat demands on the same facts cannot be issued invoking suppression or fraud, leading to the demand being set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all the appeals based on the analysis and discussions presented.