Government society liable for service tax on additional services, directed to deposit payment pending compliance review.

The appellant, a government-owned society, was found liable to pay service tax on additional services beyond their registration. The demand for service tax and penalties for 2006-07 to 2010-11 was confirmed. The High Court set aside the dismissal order, directing reconsideration of the time bar and prima facie case. The Tribunal restored the appeal and stay application for further review, focusing on time bar and penalties. Despite arguments for non-taxability due to unity with the government, the Tribunal found lack of compliance efforts and directed a deposit to cover part of the liability, with a waiver possibility subject to compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay service tax on various services.
2. Invocation of the extended period for tax assessment.
3. Challenge against the dismissal order and stay application.
4. Consideration of the defense regarding service provider-service receiver relationship.
5. Compliance with legal provisions and efforts made by the appellant for full compliance.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered society owned by the Government of Kerala, was found liable to pay service tax on additional services beyond what they were registered for. The demand for service tax, along with penalties, was confirmed for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11.

2. The Tribunal initially directed the appellant to deposit a certain amount, which was not complied with, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, the High Court set aside this order, emphasizing the need to reconsider the issue of time bar and prima facie case by the Department.

3. Following the High Court's directions, the Tribunal restored the appeal and stay application for further consideration, focusing on the time bar claimed by the appellant and the imposition of penalties.

4. The appellant argued that certain services provided to the Government of Kerala should not be taxable due to the perceived unity between the appellant and the government. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate efforts towards compliance and verification of their tax liability, leading to a direction to deposit a significant amount to cover part of the service tax liability.

5. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence showing proactive steps taken by the appellant to ensure compliance with tax laws. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within a given timeframe, with the possibility of waiving the pre-deposit of the remaining dues during the appeal process, subject to compliance.

---