Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant in Tax Dispute | Exemption Granted

M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise

M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise - 2022 (58) G. S. T. L. 345 (Tri. - All.) Issues:
1. Tax liability on consulting engineer services, rent-a-cab service, and legal services under reverse charge.
2. Alleged suppression of taxable value and non-payment of service tax.
3. Application of cum-duty benefit and calculation of tax liability.
4. Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Dispute over tax liability on reimbursements for consulting engineer services.
6. Challenge to tax liability calculation based on Form 26AS.
7. Contention regarding burden of proof and cogent evidence.
8. Sustainability of penalty under section 78 of the Act.
9. Benefit of exemption for consulting engineer services related to road construction.
10. Extended period of limitation invocation and suppression of material facts.
11. Validity of tax computation based on Form No. 26AS.
12. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
13. Lack of specific allegation for demand under reverse charge mechanism for rent-a-cab service.

Analysis:

1. The appeal concerned tax liability on consulting engineer services, rent-a-cab service, and legal services under reverse charge. The appellant was alleged to have suppressed taxable value and not paid service tax during the period 2011-12 to 2015-16.

2. The adjudicating authority initially proposed a tax liability of &8377;75,26,309, later reduced to &8377;58,34,034, with interest and penalty imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) further reduced the penalty to &8377;46,19,772 but confirmed the tax liability.

3. The appellant contended that reimbursements for consulting engineer services should not be taxed separately as professional fees were already taxed. They argued that only the gross amount charged for services should be taxed as per section 67(1)(i) of the Act.

4. The challenge was also raised against the tax liability calculation based on Form 26AS, with the appellant arguing that not all amounts in Form 26AS were liable to service tax, citing various case laws to support their position.

5. The appellant disputed the sustainability of penalty under section 78 of the Act, claiming that the conditions precedent for imposing the penalty were not met in this case.

6. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST for providing consulting engineer services related to road construction. The extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was deemed incorrect.

7. It was held that Form No. 26AS was not a statutory document for determining taxable turnover under the Service Tax provisions, as service tax is chargeable on a mercantile basis, not cash basis.

8. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and holding that they were entitled to exemption and that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.

9. No specific allegation was found for the demand under reverse charge mechanism for rent-a-cab service, leading to the allowance of the appeal and granting of consequential benefits to the appellant.