Post Master wins appeal against service tax liability for courier services, citing payment method and limitation grounds.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a Post Master regarding service tax liability on courier services, overturning the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation grounds. The Tribunal held that demanding service tax payment for the second time was against the law, citing constitutional provisions and CGA instructions allowing payment through book adjustment. The impugned order confirming the tax demand, interest, and penalty was set aside, granting the appellant relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Service tax liability on courier services.
2. Payment of service tax through book adjustment.
3. Dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Post Master, was required to pay service tax on courier services. The show cause notice alleged non-payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 9,61,025, partly through cenvat credit and partly through book adjustment. The appellant contested, providing clarification that the tax compliance responsibility lies with the concerned DDO/HPO, and service tax was accounted for and reported to the CGA. The impugned order confirmed the demand, imposing interest and penalty under Section 76.

2. The appellant appealed, arguing that payment through book adjustment is not illegal, especially as a Central Government Department. Reference was made to a Tribunal ruling supporting the practice based on CGA instructions. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds due to delay in filing. The appellant contended that the tax was paid through book adjustment, a common practice, and emphasized that the payment was not denied by the Service Tax Department. The Tribunal found the demand for service tax payment a second time to be against the Service Tax Act and Article 265 of the Constitution, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the inadmissibility of demanding service tax payment for the second time, aligning with constitutional provisions. The appellant's argument regarding the legality of payment through book adjustment, supported by CGA instructions, was crucial in overturning the impugned order. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds was overridden by the Tribunal's finding that demanding tax payment twice would be contrary to the legal framework, granting the appellant consequential benefits.

---