2012 (12) TMI 357 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant Liable for Service Tax Evasion on India Telephone Cards: Court Stresses Location-Based Tax Compliance

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu

The court held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax based on the place of service provision, emphasizing the importance of determining tax ... Tele Communication Service - Demand of service tax along with interest and penalties - liability to pay at place where service is provided v/s place where consideration is collected - Held that:- In a technology intensive operation like providing of telecommunication service backed up by computers it is always possible to find out the consideration received for service provided in taxable territory if only the appellant desired to do so. The appellant has prima facie encouraged sale of such cards in Jammu & Kashmir and not accounting and reporting services provided in the taxable territory this is a case of suppression of information with intent to evade payment of service tax, as the impugned telephone service was provided by the appellant and not the franchises who sold the card - short levy in tax is not attributable to the franchisees - appellant has to pre-deposit the entire tax dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal and if such amount is not deposited in time the appeal will be rejected without any further notice to the appellant - Decided against the assessee. Issues:1. Liability to pay service tax based on the place of service provision.2. Allegations of tax evasion through the sale of India Telephone Cards in Jammu & Kashmir.3. Responsibility of franchisees in tax collection and service provision.4. Extended period demand for service tax.5. Suppression of information by the appellant.6. Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal admission.Liability to pay service tax based on the place of service provision:The judgment deliberated on the liability to pay service tax concerning the location of service provision rather than where the consideration is collected. It was highlighted that the service tax is applicable to services provided outside Jammu & Kashmir using India Telephone Cards sold in the state. The court emphasized that the place of service provision is crucial in determining the tax liability.Allegations of tax evasion through the sale of India Telephone Cards in Jammu & Kashmir:The appellant was accused of evading service tax by selling India Telephone Cards in Jammu & Kashmir without paying tax on services provided outside the state. The Revenue argued that the arrangement was a deliberate attempt to evade tax, as the service tax was not collected for services provided in taxable territories using the cards sold in Jammu & Kashmir.Responsibility of franchisees in tax collection and service provision:The appellant contended that any tax shortfalls were due to the franchisees' failure to collect service tax. However, the court disagreed, stating that the appellant encouraged the sale of cards in Jammu & Kashmir without properly accounting for services provided in taxable territories.Extended period demand for service tax:The demand for service tax was challenged on the grounds of invoking an extended period for tax assessment. The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade tax, especially as a public sector undertaking. However, the court found the appellant's conduct during the investigation indicative of an attempt to suppress information.Suppression of information by the appellant:The court observed that the appellant's actions indicated a deliberate attempt to evade service tax by not reporting services provided in taxable territories using the cards sold in Jammu & Kashmir. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of tax evasion, especially by a public sector undertaking.Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal admission:In the final decision, the court directed the appellant to pre-deposit the entire tax dues for admission of the appeal. Failure to comply would result in the rejection of the appeal without further notice. The court emphasized the importance of meeting the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal to proceed.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the various issues addressed, including tax liability, tax evasion allegations, franchisee responsibilities, extended period demands, suppression of information, and pre-deposit requirements for appeal admission.