Tax Tribunal: Applicant directed to predeposit &;30,00,000 for service tax dispute

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the applicant's documentation and lack of evidence to support their claims regarding service tax on 'Programme Producer Service' and 'Advertising Agency Service' for the period from October 2004 to March 2009. The applicant was directed to predeposit &8377; 30,00,000/- within eight weeks to resolve the dispute, with the balance dues waived upon compliance and recovery stayed during the appeal process.

---

---

Issues:
Demand of service tax under 'Programme Producer Service' and 'Advertising Agency Service' for the period from October 2004 to March 2009.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the demand of service tax on two categories - 'Programme Producer Service' and 'Advertising Agency Service'. The applicant, engaged in producing television programmes and supervising production activities, faced a confirmed demand of service tax amounting to &8377; 2,26,78,345/- along with interest and penalty for the mentioned period. The applicant disputed the tax demand, highlighting that the tax on advertising agency service was about &8377; 1.32 crores, with the remaining amount pertaining to programme producer service. The applicant contended that they had paid the tax at Chennai but mistakenly used the service tax registration number of the Mumbai branch. The dispute also included the tax on print media cost under the advertising agency service.

Regarding the demand on programme producer service, the applicant had paid most of the tax except for an amount of &8377; 15,88,767/-. The Revenue argued that the applicant failed to file returns at Chennai and did not provide substantial evidence of the tax payment. The Revenue emphasized that the applicant collected service tax from customers but did not deposit it in Chennai, leading to a lack of documentation supporting the tax payments. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the applicant's claims and the lack of proper evidence to substantiate the print media cost for the advertising agency service.

The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and submissions from both sides. It noted the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation and invoice-wise break-up to support their claims. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the payment details and the lack of ST-3 returns filed by the applicant. While the applicant asserted that the demanded amount was paid in Chennai but credited to the Mumbai account, the Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of supporting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to predeposit &8377; 30,00,000/- within eight weeks to resolve the dispute, with the balance dues waived upon compliance and recovery stayed during the appeal process.

---