2015 (1) TMI 809 - HC - Service Tax

Court rules on tax liability for rent-a-cab services under Finance Act

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Versus VIJAY TRAVELS

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Versus VIJAY TRAVELS - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 513 (Guj.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the services provided by the respondent fall under the category of 'Rent-a-Cab Scheme Operator' as per Section 65(20) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Whether the distinction between 'renting' and 'hiring' of cabs is relevant for service tax purposes.3. Whether the Tribunal violated judicial discipline or issued orders contrary to the statute.4. Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation.5. Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the services provided by the respondent fall under the category of 'Rent-a-Cab Scheme Operator' as per Section 65(20) of the Finance Act, 1994:The respondent, engaged in providing rent-a-cab services, entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Secondary Education Board (GSEB) for the supply of vehicles. The vehicles were provided along with drivers, and payments were made on a per-kilometer basis. The Commissioner held that the ownership of vehicles is irrelevant, and the service provided contravenes the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal, however, held that the services provided were not rent-a-cab services but transportation services. The High Court concluded that the services provided fall under the rent-a-cab category, thereby making the respondent liable for service tax.2. Whether the distinction between 'renting' and 'hiring' of cabs is relevant for service tax purposes:The Tribunal had distinguished between 'renting' and 'hiring,' stating that the services provided were on a per-kilometer basis and thus constituted transportation services. However, the High Court noted that the Finance Act does not distinguish between renting and hiring for service tax purposes. The intention of the statute is to tax services involving both renting and hiring of cabs. Therefore, the distinction made by the Tribunal was not upheld, and the services were deemed taxable under the rent-a-cab category.3. Whether the Tribunal violated judicial discipline or issued orders contrary to the statute:The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that it did not follow judicial discipline and issued orders contrary to the statute. The High Court found that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the provisions of the Finance Act by distinguishing between renting and hiring. The Tribunal's decision was thus set aside, and it was held that the services provided by the respondent fall under the taxable category of rent-a-cab services.4. Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation:The Commissioner invoked the extended period of five years for levying service tax, citing suppression of facts by the respondent. The Tribunal held that there was no intentional suppression or mala fide intent, as the service tax on rent-a-cab services was a relatively new and ambiguous area. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, concluding that the extended period could not be invoked in this case, and the show cause notices were barred by limitation.5. Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee:The Commissioner had imposed penalties under Sections 75, 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal deleted the penalties, citing the ambiguity and recent introduction of the service tax on rent-a-cab services. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that there was no deliberate act of suppression or mala fide intent by the respondent. Therefore, the penalties were rightly deleted.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the services provided by the respondent fall under the category of rent-a-cab services, making them liable for service tax. However, the extended period for issuing show cause notices was not applicable due to the lack of deliberate suppression or mala fide intent. The penalties imposed were also rightly deleted by the Tribunal. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the revenue for the tax liability but in favor of the assessee for the limitation and penalty issues.