2007 (12) TMI 60 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules against service tax demand for registrar services, citing incorrect classification

KARVY CONSULTANTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD

KARVY CONSULTANTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 166 (Tri. - Bang.) , [2008] 14 STT 227 (BANG. – CESTAT) Issues:- Whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the amounts received for providing taxable services as registrar and share transfer agent.- Whether the services provided by the appellants fall under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services.'- Whether the show cause notice was time-barred and if there was any suppression of facts.- Whether the impugned order demanding service tax, interest, and penalty is justified.Analysis:1. Service Tax Liability:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original demanding service tax on amounts received by the appellants for providing taxable services as registrar and share transfer agent. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, including interest and penalties. The appellants argued that their services were not taxable as they fell under a different category and were brought into the service tax net only from a later date. The Tribunal found that the appellants were engaged in the services of share transfer agent and registrar official, which were not taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' before a specific date. Thus, the impugned order demanding service tax was set aside.2. Classification of Services:The appellants contended that the services provided by them did not fall under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services.' They argued that the new category of share transfer agent services introduced later was not covered by the earlier category. The Tribunal referred to precedents and held that the services provided by the appellants as share transfer agent and registrar official did not fall under 'Business Auxiliary Services' before a certain date. Therefore, the classification of services was crucial in determining the tax liability.3. Time-Barred Show Cause Notice:The appellants raised the issue of the show cause notice being time-barred and lacking any allegation of intention to evade payment of duty. They argued that the department was well aware of their activities, and there was no suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed that the longer period could not be invoked due to the absence of suppression of facts. As a result, the show cause notice was considered time-barred, and no justification was found for the interest and penalty imposed.4. Justification of Impugned Order:After considering all arguments, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the impugned order demanding service tax, interest, and penalty. The order was set aside based on the lack of tax liability for the services provided by the appellants before a specific date and the absence of suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing both the merit-based and limitation-based justifications for setting aside the impugned order.