2018 (11) TMI 306 - AT - Service Tax

Rent a cab service or not? - providing air-conditioned cars on hire basis to various government departments - Extended period of limitation - Held that - N/N. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 was amended through N/N. 6/2014 dated 11.07.2014 wherein the said entry at Clause 23(b) has been amended and the said exemption was restricted only to non-air-conditioned vehicles - thus, from 11.07.2014, the air-conditioned vehicle which is provided by the appellant is attracting Service Tax as applicable - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - penalty u/s 78 - Held that - In view of litigation going on on the issue there is no element of suppression involved - extended period cannot be invoked - penalty also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of taxability of service provided, invocation of extended period of limitation for raising demand, applicability of exemption notification, sustainability of demand based on amended notification, setting aside penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Taxability of Service Provided:
The case involved the appellant providing air-conditioned cars on hire basis to government departments, which the Revenue considered as 'rent a cab' service, leading to a demand of approximately &8377; 51.00 Lakhs for the period from 2010-11 to 2014-15. The appellant argued that the taxability of providing vehicles with drivers under 'rent a cab' service was in dispute and required interpretation. The matter had reached finality through a ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand. The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the ongoing dispute and the show cause notice being issued on 28.09.2015.

2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation for Raising Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand raised invoking the extended period of limitation was not sustainable as the matter was under dispute and required interpretation. The show cause notice was issued on 28.09.2015, making the period before 28.03.2014 hit by limitation. The Tribunal found that in view of the ongoing litigation and lack of suppression, the demand for the extended period of limitation was set aside.

3. Applicability of Exemption Notification:
It was noted that for the period from 20.03.2014 to 10.07.2014, the activity of providing air-conditioned cars was exempted through Clause 23(b) of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. However, this exemption was restricted to non-air-conditioned vehicles through an amendment in Notification No.6/2014 dated 11.07.2014. The Tribunal held that from 11.07.2014, the air-conditioned vehicles provided by the appellant were subject to Service Tax.

4. Sustainability of Demand Based on Amended Notification:
Considering the amended Notification No.6/2014, the Tribunal found that the demand for the period from 11.07.2014 was sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as there was no element of suppression involved due to the ongoing litigation on the issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for the extended period of limitation, penalty under section 78, and holding that the activity was exempted for a specific period as per the relevant notifications. The appellant was entitled to consequential relief as per the judgment.