2023 (6) TMI 1082 - AT - Service Tax

Non/short payment of service tax - incentives/discounts received from MSIL on various promotional schemes implemented for promoting the sales of Maruti vehicles - short declaration of taxable value in the ST-3 return in comparison to the books of accounts for the impugned period - extended period of limitation. Demand of service tax on incentives and other discounts received from MSIL by the Appellant - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integraand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of BM AUTOLINK VERSUS C.C.E. -KUTCH (GANDHIDHAM) 2022 (12) TMI 12 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , wherein the Tribunal had referred to the judgement of M/S ROSHAN MOTORS PVT. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 2022 (8) TMI 1254 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and held that The vehicle manufacturer M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on the basis of yearly performance of sale grants the discount to the dealer, this discount is nothing but a discount in the sale value of the vehicle sold throughout the year therefore, these sales discount in the course of transaction of sale and purchase of the vehicles hence, the same cannot be considered as service for levy of service tax - thus, the demand of service tax of Rs.3,86,36,400/- cannot survive and is set aside. Demand of service tax on the basis of difference in ledgers of income and value shown in ST 3 for such services rendered - HELD THAT - The Appellant has produced a CA certificate being the statutory auditor of the Appellant and the main reason for such difference was because the department has only taken the credit side of income by ignoring the debit entries for reversal etc. and hence the value as per ledger is inflated. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Since there had been service tax audit conducted prior to the DGGI investigation covering the period under dispute, the suppression cannot be alleged by the department for income reconciliation of books and ST 3 returns as no such allegation was raised during department audit. Hence, extended period of limitation also cannot be invoked to raise any demand. The entire demand of service tax has to go and the order of the Ld. Adjudicating authority is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the present appeal are:
A. Demand of service tax on the basis of difference in ledgers of income and value shown in ST 3 for such services rendered.
B. Demand of service tax on incentives and other discounts received from MSIL by the Appellant.

Issue A - Demand of service tax on the basis of difference in ledgers of income and value shown in ST 3 for such services rendered:
The Appellant, a dealer of Maruti vehicles, contested the demand of service tax based on discrepancies in the income ledgers and ST 3 returns. The Appellant provided a CA certificate explaining the differences, attributing them to the department's oversight of debit entries. The Appellant also highlighted that a service tax audit had previously been conducted, where the income reconciliation was satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, stating that since no suppression was alleged during the department audit, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked to raise the demand. Consequently, the entire demand of service tax under this issue was set aside, and the order of the Adjudicating authority was overturned.

Issue B - Demand of service tax on incentives and other discounts received from MSIL by the Appellant:
The crux of this issue was whether the incentives received by the Appellant from MSIL should attract service tax. The department contended that the incentives were liable for service tax as per the terms of the Agreement, while the Appellant argued that the incentives were trading income arising from vehicle sales, not services provided to MSIL. The Appellant cited various judgments to support their stance. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and held that since the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis and the incentives were discounts on sale value, they did not constitute a service for service tax levy. Therefore, the demand of service tax on incentives and discounts amounting to Rs. 3,86,36,400/- was set aside based on established legal principles.

(Separate Judgment by Judges: None mentioned)
(Order pronounced in the open court on 23 June 2023.)