State Transport Undertaking reverse charge service tax on hired buses, taxis and legal consultancy rejected; extended limitation also failed.

A State Transport Undertaking engaged in public transport was not liable to service tax under reverse charge on hired buses and taxis, because the rent-a-cab category and the exemption for such undertakings were applied to exclude that liability. Its receipt of legal consultancy services was also held outside reverse charge liability on the same factual and statutory footing. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the demand was based on audit detection alone and there was no proof of deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism on buses and taxis hired from third parties and on legal consultancy services received by it; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism on buses and taxis hired from third parties and on legal consultancy services received by it.

Analysis: The appellant was treated as a State Transport Undertaking performing a public transport function. The reasoning adopted earlier in transport corporation cases was applied to hold that such an undertaking does not fall within the rent-a-cab service category for the hired buses and taxis. The exemption relied on for State Transport Undertakings was also applied. On the legal consultancy component, the same statutory character of the appellant and the absence of a profit-oriented commercial character were treated as decisive, and liability was negatived even under reverse charge mechanism.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to service tax on either the hired buses and taxis or the legal consultancy services.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The demand was found to rest only on audit-based detection, and no material was found showing deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The legal standard applied required something more than mere non-payment or omission, namely a culpable intent to evade, which was not established on the record.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The service tax demand was unsustainable on merits and on limitation, so the adjudication order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A State Transport Undertaking engaged in public transport cannot be fastened with rent-a-cab based service tax liability in the facts considered, and the extended period cannot be invoked without proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax.

---