2013 (4) TMI 552 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal overturns service tax demand, citing principle against double taxation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax liability of Rs.40,850 with interest and penalties. The appellant successfully ... Service tax liability on outward transportation facility (GTA) - ST liability discharged by the GTA - Held that:- On perusal of the certificates issued by the transport companies, these transporters have categorically stated that the service tax liability for the invoices raised on the appellant has been discharged by them and they had also mentioned their service tax registration number and PAN number in their certificates. As against such documentary evidences, the first appellate authority’s findings as to no authentic documentary evidence has been produced, seems to be incorrect. Since the certificates clearly indicate the service tax registration number, the least that could have been expected from the Revenue, was to call for the details from the concerned jurisdictional service tax authorities. Having not done, the lower authorities cannot shift the entire blame on the appellants for having not produced any authentic documentary evidence. The decision of this bench in the case Navyg Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (8) TMI 100 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD), Mandev Tubes (2009 (5) TMI 102 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and Geeta Industries Pvt. Ltd (2010 (1) TMI 715 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) will squarely cover the issue in favour of the assessee. In favour of assessee. Issues:Service tax liability on outward transportation services not discharged by the appellant.Analysis:The appeal was against an order demanding service tax liability from the appellant for outward transportation of goods. The appellant argued that they had paid part of the liability and that the transporters had also paid a portion, as evidenced by certificates provided. The lower authorities confirmed the demands and imposed penalties. The first appellate authority upheld the original order. The appellant cited previous tribunal cases and a CBEC circular to support their claim that service tax liability should not be on the recipient of services. The Assistant Commissioner argued that the evidence provided was not specific enough. The Tribunal noted that the issue to be decided was the service tax liability of Rs.40,850 for outward transportation. Certificates from transport companies confirmed they had paid the service tax, contrary to the lower authorities' findings. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing previous tribunal decisions and the CBEC circular, which stated that service tax should not be charged from any other person if already paid by the liable party to avoid double taxation. Thus, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand for service tax liability of Rs.40,850 with interest and penalties.