2018 (3) TMI 700 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - service of maintenance and repair - extended period of limitation - Held that - The period involved is 1.7.2003 to 30.9.2004. The Show Cause Notice is dt. 25.6.2008. It is merely stated the appellants failed to discharge the service tax and file returns. This is not enough. There should be clear evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. We do not find any evidence in this regard - SCN invoking extended period not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax for maintenance and repair services provided to the Municipal Corporation.
2. Whether the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants is sustainable.
3. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued to the appellants is within the limitation period.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were contracted for maintenance and repair works for the Municipal Corporation, involving various services like erection of poles, fixing of light fittings, and attending to complaints. The service tax on maintenance and repair services was introduced from 1.7.2003. The appellant argued that the nature of their work did not fall under maintenance and repair services as there was no specific maintenance agreement with the Corporation. They contended that the contract was composite and included replacement work, citing relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that the demand for service tax could not be sustained based on the nature of the contract.

2. The appellant further argued that the Show Cause Notice issued in 2008 was beyond the limitation period, as the period involved was from 1.7.2003 to 30.9.2004. The appellant claimed they were under the belief that their activities did not fall under the service tax definition due to the composite nature of the contract. The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional suppression of facts by the appellants to evade tax payment. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period was not maintainable and set it aside, leading to the appeal being allowed on the ground of limitation.

3. The Tribunal considered the amendments in the definition of maintenance and repair services and the appellant's genuine belief regarding the applicability of service tax to their contract. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of deliberate non-compliance or evasion by the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside on the grounds of limitation, providing the appellants with consequential reliefs. The decision was pronounced in open court, concluding the matter in favor of the appellants.