9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a-cab services . It is also noted that the aforesaid work order specifically includes that the rate was inclusive of service tax. This clearly means that the appellant was liable to pay the service tax dues for the provision of the said service. Extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant had taken service tax registration under the rent -a -cab service in 2001- 02. The appellant had filed the returns upto 31.3.2005, and thereafter stopped filing returns. It is recorded in the show cause notice that it was during the examination of the records of SECL that the activity of the appellant came to the knowledge of the department - the appellant was aware that he/she was liable to pay the service tax dues for the provision of the said service, and failed to do so. This clearly establishes their intent to evade the tax. In view of the same, the extended period has been correctly invoked by the department. Payment of interest - HELD THAT:- In the case of PRATIBHA PROCESSORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1996 (10) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court held that Interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee who has withheld pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Raipur, which was dismissed. Against the said impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal which vide Stay Order No. 54880/2014 dated 04.12.2014 had ordered for payment of pre-deposit of the service tax liability along with interest within eight weeks. The appellant then challenged the aforesaid stay order before the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and the High Court vide its order dated 10.02.2015 held that if the appellant is of the opinion that a part of the adjudicated liability had already been deposited, it may be bring it to the attention of the Tribunal itself . The Hon'ble High Court further extended the time for pre-deposit by two weeks from 24.02.2015. Thereafter, the appellant filed a SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgement of the High Court dated 10.02.2015 and the Hon ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.03.2015 in appeal no. 8241/2015 dismissed the appeal. However, four weeks time was granted to comply with order and directions passed by the Court. The appellant again appeared before the Tribunal which vide Misc. Order no. 50834/2016-CU (DB) dated 11.07.2016 observed that in view of Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs CCE [2018 (10) GSTL 288 (All)]. The Learned Counsel further contended that the major demand is beyond the normal period of 1 year. He stated that as the dispute was on interpretation of taxable service falling under section 65 (105)(0), and in view of aforesaid contrary decisions, it is obvious that there was a dispute on interpretation of provisions of Service tax law. It is the settled law that in such cases, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Continental Foundation JT Venture Vs CCE reported in 2007 (216) ELT 177. International Merchandising Company, LLC Vs Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi reported in 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C). Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Vijay Travels rep in 2014 (36) S.T.R 513 (Guj). Pearl Travels Vs CCE S.T Daman rep in 2020 (37) G.S.T.L 242 (Tri- Ahmd). Choudhry Yatra Co. Ltd Vs CCE, Nashik rep in 2013 (29) S.T.R 240. (Tri- Mumbai) 3.2 Learned Counsel further stated that with effect from 01.04.2010, the appellant was not providing services to M/s SECL and the contract had changed from Ms. Anita Sakhuja to Mr. Gautam Sakhuja. Consequently, service tax on amounts paid by SECL to Gautam Sakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the extended period had been rightly invoked as the appellant had charged service tax from their customer and had not deposited the same, which proves their intent to evade. He further submitted that the penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act 1994 was imposable as the appellant had been given ample opportunity to furnish the records/documents. They had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 77, and were liable to penalty. 5. Heard the ld Counsel for the appellant and the ld Authorised Representative for the department. We have also perused the case records. We note that this is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. The earlier round of litigation involved the payment of pre- deposit, and not the issue which is under consideration in the present appeal. The undisputed facts of this case are as follows: (i) Appellant is a proprietary firm, and is registered for provision of rent a cab service with the Department from 2001-2002 (ii) Appellant has provided rent a cab service to SECL valued at Rs 2,70,38,024/- from Oct 2005-Dec 2010. (iii) Appellant has paid the entire service tax along with interest. 5.1 We first address the issue that arises fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned at the premises of the hirer and was under his exclusive control, the tax liability under rent-a-cab service would arise. In R.S. Travels [2008 12 S.T.R. 27 (Tri-Del)], the Tribunal held that relying on the decision in the case of Express Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (3) S.T.R. 664 (Tri.)], held that the Government's intention, is to tax the provider of a service, which involves hire and renting of a cab formally for a long period. It was further held that the test for ascertaining whether an activity is covered by the entry rent- a-cab operator service is as to whether it involves giving a cab with or without driver to a client for a certain period of time for some consideration, which can be on per hour or per day or per month basis. In the instant case, it is noted that the car had been hired on monthly basis by the client SECL, as per the sample work order. The rate contract also stipulated that such rate is inclusive of service tax. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is correct in holding that the appellant is liable to service tax in respect of the services rendered by him under the category of rent-a-cab services . We also note that the aforesaid work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant did not receive the notice for personal hearing fixed for 28.08.2012. This submission cannot be accepted as the other personal hearing notices were received by the appellant at their registered address. The case has been decided after giving five opportunities to the appellant, which is fair number of chances. We are also constrained to note that the work order issued by SECL specifically includes that the rate was inclusive of service tax. This clearly means that the appellant was aware that he/she was liable to pay the service tax dues for the provision of the said service, and failed to do so. This clearly establishes their intent to evade the tax. In view of the same, we hold that the extended period has been correctly invoked by the department. 5.4. As regards the submissions regarding payment of interest, we note that in the case of Pratibha Processors v. Union of India 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)- the Supreme Court held that Interest is compensatory in character and is imposed on an assessee who has withheld payment of any tax as and when it is due and payable . Accordingly, we hold that the demand of interest in the impugned order is correct. 5.5 We now consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
