2025 (3) TMI 385 - AT - Service Tax

Seeking rectification of mistake in the final order - whether the tax liability in the present case was under Reverse Charge Mechanism and whether the appellant was liable to pay tax? - HELD THAT - There is no question of any express determination of nature of service as admittedly the services rendered by the appellant are those of Goods Transport Agency and of giving truck/vehicles on hire. The person liable to pay service tax has clearly been discussed by the adjudicating authorities below and the findings have been affirmed by this Tribunal. Since there were two rounds of litigation and the findings of the departmental adjudicating authority have been affirmed by this Tribunal the principle of merger applies vis- -vis all the decisions. There are no error as alleged in the impugned final order dated 28.06.2024 except for the aforequoted typographical omission vis- -vis word not in para 5.1 of the impugned final order. Application allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal heard an application for rectification of a mistake in a final order dated 28.06.2024. The appellant alleged errors in the order, specifically related to the determination of the nature of service, classification of service, applicable rates, tax liability under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, and eligibility for threshold exemption. The appellant sought rectification of these alleged errors. The Departmental Representative denied the allegations, stating there was no error in the final order and that the appellant was not entitled to benefits under certain notifications.The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously discussed the issue of service tax demand and exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Commissioner found that the appellant had not provided sufficient documentation to prove eligibility for the exemption. The Tribunal observed that there was a typographical error in the final order regarding the exemption under Mega Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption.The Tribunal also noted that there was no express determination of the nature of service as the services provided were those of a Goods Transport Agency. The issue of the person liable to pay service tax had been discussed by the lower adjudicating authorities and affirmed by the Tribunal. The principle of merger applied to all decisions since the findings of the departmental adjudicating authority had been upheld by the Tribunal.After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal found no error in the final order dated 28.06.2024, except for a typographical omission in one line of the order. The Tribunal allowed an application by the respondent department to change its name. Despite the procedural irregularity in the timing of the application, the Tribunal granted the request due to the appellant's application for rectification and the reorganization of the jurisdiction under the CGST Act, 2017.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both miscellaneous applications and pronounced the decision in open court on 06/03/2025.