2018 (1) TMI 1058 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - business of canvassing advertisements for publications like Daily Thanthi, Rani Weekly and getting fixed retainership fee for their work - Held that - the tax entry with reference to advertising agency and also auxiliary activities of space selling has no relevance to the activities of the appellant in the present case. The appellants are engaged in improving advertisement revenue of the client. In other words, they are promoting the services of clients. Such service on the part of the client is exempted by itself will not make the appellant as not providing any taxable service - appellants are liable to tax under Business Auxiliary Service . Time Limitation - Held that - the issue involved is certainly one of interpretation. It is also to be noted that appellant acquired business from M/s.Sovereign Media marketing (P) Ltd. who was never subjected to service tax for the same activities. This admittedly led to bonafides of the appellant - extended period and penalty cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of appellant's activities under Business Auxiliary Service.
2. Applicability of extended period for invoking tax demand.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 1: The main issue in this case was whether the appellant's activities of canvassing advertisements for publications and receiving fixed retainership fees should be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service. The Revenue argued that the appellant's activities promoted the business of the publications and thus fell under taxable services. The appellant contended that they were not involved in promotional activities on a commission basis and only received fixed fees. The Board's clarifications were cited to support the appellant's argument that their activities were not taxable under advertising agency services. The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities fell within the scope of Business Auxiliary Service as they were involved in promoting the services of their clients, even though they were not acting as an advertising agency.

Issue 2: The second issue revolved around the invocation of the extended period for tax demand. The appellant argued that the demand was based on an interpretation of the statute and that no malafide intent could be attributed to them. They also highlighted that they had acquired business from another entity that was not subjected to service tax for similar activities. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and held that the defense against the extended period and penalty under Section 78 was valid. Consequently, the liability for tax was restricted to the normal period without any penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the tax liability of the appellant under Business Auxiliary Service but restricting it to the normal period without imposing any penalty. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting statutes in tax matters and considered the appellant's actions in good faith while determining the applicability of the extended period for tax demand and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.