2017 (12) TMI 1189 - AT - Service Tax

Authorised Service station - activity of servicing/ repairing of vehicles undertaken by the Appellant for customers - whether in the given facts the Appellant can be taxed under the category of Authorised Service station? - Held that - only for the reason that the Appellant was using job cards bearing brand name of M/s Tata the Appellant does not become authorized service station of M/s Tata. The adjudicating authority has reached to conclusion that the Appellant are deemed authorized service station by quoting the clause of agreement between M/s Tata and M/s Pandit Automotive. We however find that none of these clause implicate Appellant as service provider to M/s Tata or that M/s Tata has approved the Appellant as jobber of M/s Pandit Automotive. Only for the reason that the stationary or software of M/s Tata or that M/s Tata were not concerned with Appellant working for M/s Pandit Automotive would not lead to situation that the Appellant has stepped into the shoes of M/s Pandit Automotive. Clearly in case of servicing and repairing of vehicles for which the Appellant billed the vehicle owners could not have been under the banner of M/s Tata which was not concerned with such activity. The Appellant is neither the agent of M/s Tata nor they have acted on behalf of M/s Tata. In such case the Agency by Estoppel cannot be applied in the present case. It is fit to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for Denovo consideration who would decide the case on merits as well as time bar aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the appellant under the category of "Authorized Service Station" for service tax.
2. Interpretation of the agreement between M/s Tata Motors and M/s Pandit Automotive.
3. Applicability of Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act.
4. Time-barred nature of the demand.
5. Correctness of the demand quantification including the inclusion of spare parts value.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the Appellant under the Category of "Authorized Service Station" for Service Tax:
The primary issue is whether the appellant can be taxed under the category of "Authorized Service Station." The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant's activity of servicing/repairing vehicles falls under this category and is liable for service tax. The appellant contended that the definition of "Authorized Service Station" under Section 65 (8) pertains to a service station or center authorized by a motor vehicle manufacturer, which in this case, is M/s Pandit Automotive, not the appellant. The appellant argued that they operated under an internal agreement with M/s Pandit Automotive and not directly with M/s Tata Motors. The servicing was performed at M/s Pandit Automotive's premises, and the appellant issued bills directly to customers for vehicles outside the warranty period, without any indication of being an authorized service station of M/s Tata Motors.

2. Interpretation of the Agreement between M/s Tata Motors and M/s Pandit Automotive:
The agreement between M/s Tata Motors and M/s Pandit Automotive appointed M/s Pandit Automotive as the authorized dealer and service center, with no involvement of the appellant. M/s Pandit Automotive was responsible for selling and servicing Tata vehicles on a principal-to-principal basis and could not appoint any sub-dealers or agents without Tata's consent. The appellant serviced vehicles under an internal agreement with M/s Pandit Automotive, and M/s Pandit Automotive billed M/s Tata Motors for warranty services, discharging the service tax liability. For vehicles outside the warranty, the appellant issued labor charge bills directly to customers, and M/s Pandit Automotive billed for spare parts.

3. Applicability of Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act:
The revenue argued that the appellant acted as an authorized representative of M/s Tata Motors based on Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act, which deals with the acts of agents. However, the tribunal found that the appellant was neither an agent of M/s Tata Motors nor acted on behalf of M/s Tata Motors. The agreement was on a principal-to-principal basis between M/s Pandit Automotive and M/s Tata Motors, and the appellant was not authorized by M/s Tata Motors. Therefore, the concept of agency by estoppel under Section 237 could not be applied.

4. Time-barred Nature of the Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation as there was no fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts with the intent to evade tax. They had communicated their view to the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, who confirmed that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax. This indicated no intention to evade tax. The tribunal noted that this aspect, along with other issues, required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

5. Correctness of the Demand Quantification Including the Inclusion of Spare Parts Value:
The appellant challenged the quantification of the demand, arguing that the value of spare parts was wrongly included in the value of services. The tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine this aspect during the de-novo adjudication.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication, considering all aspects including the merits, time-bar, and quantification of the demand. The issues were kept open for re-evaluation.

← Previous Next →