Tribunal overturns service tax penalty, finding appellant eligible for exemption under notification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating the impugned order's finding on the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 13/2010 was not sustainable. The appellant, registered for providing taxable services, was deemed liable for service tax under Section 66A, making all provisions of Chapter V applicable, including exemptions. Regarding the penalty imposed on the service tax payable for the sale of space, the Tribunal found it unjustifiable as the tax had been paid regularly. Consequently, the penalties related to the service were set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 13/2010 as a recipient of service
2. Penalty imposed on the service tax payable on the sale of space

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant, registered for providing taxable services, claimed exemption under Notification No. 13/2010 for renting immovable property and sale of space for advertisement services. The Department allowed the exemption as a service provider but denied it as a service receiver, confirming a service tax demand. The appellant argued that as a service receiver, it was liable to pay service tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, and thus entitled to the exemption. The respondent contended that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal analyzed Section 66A, which deems the recipient of service as the provider for tax purposes, applying all provisions of Chapter V. The Tribunal found that the legal fiction of Section 66A extends to concessions like exemptions when conditions are met. As the provider was liable for service tax under Section 66A, all provisions of Chapter V, including exemptions, applied. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating the impugned order's finding on this issue was not sustainable.

Issue 2:
The appellant also challenged the penalty imposed on the service tax payable for the sale of space, arguing that the tax had been paid regularly, and no demand or appropriation was necessary. The Tribunal noted that the tax payment was acknowledged in the impugned order and thus found the penalty for non-payment unjustifiable. Consequently, the penalties related to the service were set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---