2016 (10) TMI 742 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal confirms partial service tax demand post proprietor's death; appeal abated due to legal position.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal concerning the liability of service tax on transportation charges and reimbursed expenses due to the death of the ... Appeal against the assessee who has died / no more - transportation charges - loading and unloading charges - thappi charges - Held that: - the respondent was proprietorship firm under the Proprietor of Shri Arjun Chothani and now he is no more. Respondent being an individual dead person, the Revenue cannot file appeal against a dead person by making him respondent. Rule 22 of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 referred and held that if respondent dies, the appeal shall abate - merits of the case set aside - appeal disposed off - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Liability of service tax on transportation, loading, unloading charges.2. Applicability of service tax on reimbursed expenses.3. Appeal against a deceased individual.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability of service tax on transportation, loading, unloading chargesThe case involved a proprietorship firm that had a contract with a company for various services, including transportation, loading, and unloading. The firm was discharging service tax on the commission but not on other amounts received for additional services. The Commissioner confirmed a partial demand for service tax, citing that the consignor was liable for transportation service tax, and the reimbursed expenses were not taxable pre-2006. The Revenue appealed, arguing that all service charges should be part of the gross value of the main service. The Tribunal noted the arguments but ultimately did not delve into the merits due to the death of the proprietor, leading to the abatement of the appeal.Issue 2: Applicability of service tax on reimbursed expensesRegarding the reimbursed expenses, the Commissioner confirmed the demand only for expenses incurred after a specific date, stating that pre-2006 expenses were not taxable. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue due to the abatement of the appeal following the death of the proprietor, as per Rule 22 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.Issue 3: Appeal against a deceased individualThe Tribunal highlighted the legal position that when a respondent, in this case, a deceased individual, the appeal shall abate. Citing Rule 22, the Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot file an appeal against a deceased person. The Tribunal referred to various judgments supporting this principle and concluded that the appeal stood abated due to the death of the proprietor, without delving into the case's merits.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal due to the abatement caused by the death of the proprietor, emphasizing the legal principle that appeals cannot proceed against deceased individuals. The detailed analysis of the liability of service tax on different charges and reimbursed expenses was not pursued due to the abatement, in accordance with Rule 22 of the Tribunal's procedure rules.