2023 (6) TMI 848 - AT - Service Tax

Dispute over service tax rate resolved in favor of appellant

M/s. VLCC Health Care Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai

The appellant, engaged in providing health and beauty services, disputed the payment of service tax at an enhanced rate for services provided after a ... Rate of tax - offering various slimming and beauty packages to their clients and such packages are priced on the basis of sessions / sittings required by the respective clients - taxable at the revised rate of 12.24% for the period prior to 18.04.2006 or not - CBEC vide Circular No.65/14/2003-ST dated 05.11.2003 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the circular, it is indeed clarified the situation of payment of service tax when the service becomes taxable subsequently. It does not talk about situation of enhancement or revision of service tax. The Tribunal in the case of M/S VIGYAN GURUKUL VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [2011 (8) TMI 401 - CESTAT, DELHI] had analysed the very same issue and observed during the relevant time the rate that was applicable at the time of receipt of value of service will apply in a case where the assessee chose to pay tax on the advance amount received. The demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues involved:The issue in this case involves determining whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax at the revised rate of 12.24% for the period prior to 18.04.2006.Comprehensive details of the judgment:1. The appellant, engaged in providing 'Health & Fitness Services' and 'Beauty Parlour Services,' collected costs for slimming and beauty packages in advance from clients. The service tax rates were revised, and the appellant paid tax at 8% for the disputed period. Allegations were made that the appellant should have paid tax at the enhanced rate on services provided after the revision. Show cause notices were issued, and penalties were imposed. The matter was remanded for re-quantification, resulting in a demand of Rs.41,813/- & Rs.94,620/-. The appellant appealed, challenging the demand and penalties.2. The appellant argued that the service tax rates were revised from 8% to 10.2% and then to 12.24%. Referring to a CBEC circular, the appellant contended that tax should be paid on a pro-rata basis for services provided after becoming taxable. The appellant emphasized that the circular was withdrawn by the department and that the appellant was discharging service tax, with only the rate being revised.3. The department alleged that the appellant should pay tax at the enhanced rate for services provided after the revision. The appellant argued that the circular clarified payment for services becoming taxable subsequently, not for rate enhancements. Citing a precedent, the appellant contended that tax liability was on a receipt basis during the relevant period.4. The appellant relied on a decision in a similar case to support their argument. The Tribunal in that case held that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on advance payments received before a certain date, as tax liability was on a receipt basis during that period.5. The department supported the findings of the impugned order, maintaining that the appellant should pay tax at the enhanced rate for services provided after the revision.6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the issue and relevant legal provisions. It noted that the circular relied upon by the authorities did not address rate enhancements. Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal concluded that tax liability should apply based on the rate at the time of receipt of service value when the assessee paid tax in advance.7. Considering the facts and legal interpretations, the Tribunal set aside the demand, ruling in favor of the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.8. The judgment was pronounced in court on 20.06.2023.