2009 (4) TMI 143 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT grants waiver for service tax, interest & penalties. Revenue's case weak on service tax for road services.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, granted a full waiver of the amounts demanded in an impugned order related to service tax, interest, and ... Appeal to tribunal – clearance from committee on disputes (COD) – services in relation to roads - held that - it is very clear that in respect of the State Government undertakings, it is not necessary to insist on clearance from the Committee on Disputes - the appellant, undertake the services in connection with roads which are in the eminent domain of the State. Prima facie, we do not find that revenue has a strong case in demanding Service Tax on the said activities under the category of ‘Maintenance or Repair’ of immovable property. Hence, we grant full waiver of the amounts demanded in the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, in the 2009 case of 200-4-TMI-143, heard an appeal involving a Government of Karnataka undertaking. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a substantial sum related to service tax, interest, and penalties. The advocate argued that no clearance from the Committee on Disputes was needed due to the nature of the appellant's status as a state government undertaking. This argument was supported by references to relevant case law. The tribunal acknowledged the argument and granted a full waiver of the amounts demanded in the impugned order. The case was scheduled for final hearing on July 28, 2009. Furthermore, the tribunal considered the specific services provided by the appellant in connection with roads and found that the revenue's case for demanding service tax under the category of 'Maintenance or Repair' of immovable property was not strong. Therefore, the waiver was granted. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court. The members presiding over the case were S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran, with legal representation from S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and N. Anand for the appellant, and Ms. Joy Kumari Chander for the respondent. The order was delivered by T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T), orally. The case was adjourned for final hearing due to the significant revenue involved. This summary provides a detailed analysis of the issues covered in the judgment.