Double taxation concern justified waiver of pre-deposit where service tax had already been paid on the same transaction.

Pre-deposit of disputed service tax and penalty was waived because the record showed the services were rendered under a joint arrangement, invoices were issued by the associated entity, the full value was reflected in that entity's returns, and service tax had already been paid by it. Prior adjudication had also found that the appellant was not independently liable for the same service, and no contrary documentary material was shown to disturb that finding. On those facts, requiring a further deposit would amount to taxation twice over the same transaction, and no prima facie case existed for insisting on pre-deposit of tax or penalty. Stay against recovery was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether pre-deposit of the disputed service tax and penalty should be waived on the ground that the tax on the same services had already been discharged by the associated entity and that the appellant had made out a prima facie case.

Analysis: The record showed that the services were rendered under a joint arrangement, invoices were issued by the other entity, the entire value of the services was accounted for in its returns, and service tax had already been deposited by that entity. The earlier adjudication had specifically held that the appellant was not independently liable to pay service tax for the same service, whereas the appellate authority did not point to any contrary documentary material to displace those findings. On these facts, insisting on a further deposit would amount to demanding tax twice on the same transaction and no prima facie basis was shown for directing pre-deposit of tax or penalty.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery.

---