2019 (5) TMI 1230 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Service Tax liability upheld for Business Support Services activities. Time-barred demand rejected. Penalties overturned.

M/s Compark E Services P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ghaziabad

M/s Compark E Services P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ghaziabad - 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 634 (Tri. All.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of Services2. Applicability of Service Tax3. Time-bar and Limitation4. Imposition of PenaltyDetailed Analysis:1. Classification of Services:The core issue was whether the appellant's activities fell under 'Business Auxiliary Services' or 'Business Support Services.' The appellant was involved in purchasing and selling E-Tokens and argued that this activity was akin to the sale of goods, on which VAT was paid, and thus outside the purview of Service Tax. However, the revenue contended that the appellant's role as a Local Registering Authority (LRA) for M/s (n) Code Solutions involved verifying documents and processing applications for Digital Signature Certificates, which constituted 'Business Support Services.' The Tribunal agreed with the revenue, concluding that the appellant's activities did not amount to the sale of goods but were services provided under the agreement with M/s (n) Code Solutions.2. Applicability of Service Tax:The appellant argued that their activities were not taxable as they involved the sale of Digital Signature Certificates and E-Tokens, similar to the sale of SIM cards, which are considered sovereign functions. The Tribunal, however, upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the appellant's responsibilities under the agreement with M/s (n) Code Solutions were service-oriented and not merely sales transactions. Thus, the activities were taxable under the category of 'Business Support Services.'3. Time-bar and Limitation:There was a divergence of opinion between the members regarding the issue of time-bar. The demand covered the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11, with the show cause notice issued on 18.10.2012. The appellant contended that all transactions were duly recorded in their balance sheets and other statutory documents, negating any intention to evade tax. The Member (Judicial) emphasized that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked without evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax. The Tribunal concluded that the demand raised by invoking the extended period was time-barred since there was no positive evidence of suppression or mala fide intention. The matter was referred back to the Assistant Commissioner to re-quantify the demand for the normal period.4. Imposition of Penalty:Given the absence of mala fide intent and suppression, the Tribunal found the imposition of penalties unjustified. The Member (Judicial) noted that the appellant had maintained all statutory records and filed necessary documents with other tax authorities, indicating a bona fide belief that their activities were not taxable. Consequently, the penalties imposed were set aside.Final Decision:The majority decision held that the demand raised by invoking the extended period of limitation was time-barred. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to re-quantify the demand for the normal period, and the penalties imposed were set aside. The appeal was allowed in part, with the demand for the normal period to be recovered along with applicable interest.