Tribunal overturns service tax demand on hired taxis, allowing CENVAT credit, dismissing penalties.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for service tax on hired taxis. It was determined that the appellant, being in a similar line of business to renting motor vehicles, had correctly availed CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found no intent to evade tax, leading to the dismissal of the demand, interest, and penalties imposed in the lower orders. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was overturned.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of challenging the Order in Appeal dated 15.2.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur, concerning the liability of the appellant to pay service tax on services of taxis hired on a reverse charge basis.

Comprehensive Details:
The appellant, a Tour Operator registered with the Service Tax Department, organizes tours for foreign tourists using taxi services. The operators of these taxis paid service tax and recovered it along with their charges from the appellant, who availed CENVAT credit for the tax paid. The dispute arose when it was felt that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the hired taxis on a reverse charge basis as per Notification No. 30/2012-ST issued under the Finance Act, 1994.

The notification specified that in the case of renting motor vehicles to non-similar businesses, the service recipient should pay 100% of the service tax. The Deputy Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to recover service tax from the appellant, which was confirmed in the Order in Original and upheld in the Order in Appeal.

The appellant contended that their services were not covered under the notification as they were in a similar line of business to renting motor vehicles. They argued that since the taxi operators had already paid service tax, charging it again on a reverse charge basis would result in double taxation. They also claimed that the demand was not sustainable and penalties should be set aside.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant was in a similar line of business and had been correctly availing CENVAT credit. It was concluded that there was no intent to evade tax, and the demand, interest, and penalties in the impugned order were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting that the demand for service tax on the hired taxis was not sustainable due to the appellant's compliance with tax obligations and the absence of any intent to evade payment.

---