2025 (1) TMI 632 - HC - Service Tax

Court Affirms No Extra Registration Needed for Bank as Input Service Distributor u/r 3; Validates Cenvat Credit Claims.

Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata, Presently Known As Commissioner Of Cgst & Cx. Kolkata North Commissionerate Versus Indian Bank (Formerly Known As Allahabad Bank, Kolkata)

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that registration under Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of ... CENVAT Credit - failure to consider the fact that the respondent had never taken registration under Rule 3 of Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of persons), 2005 and as such disputed its own observation that the respondent is an Input service distributor - non-consideration of fact that the respondent have taken credit on the basis of internal statements which is not a valid document for taking credit under Rule 9 (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - levy of penalty u/s 78 of FA. HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority found that there is no need to dispute input service credit and therefore, there cannot be any requirement to take registration as “Input Service Distributor”. More importantly, the Tribunal noted that the bank is a nationalized bank and a Government of India Undertaking and therefore, there cannot be any malafide intention to evade payment of duty. Moreover, the respondent bank is registered with the Service tax Department and is paying service tax on the various services provided by them. They have always paid the taxes as and when applicable on time and all the returns have been filed on time and all the activities are known to the department and in the draft show cause notice it is no where mentioned that the assessee has ever defaulted in the past or is a regular defaulter in respect of the payment of service tax on the services provided by them. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Superintendent, Service Tax having jurisdiction over the respondent/assessee has categorically stated that since the credit is availed by the Braches and Regional offices based on invoices provided by service provider, there is no irregular availment of CENVAT credit. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that there were audit conducted in the past and the audit team scrutinized the records of the bank and the department was fully aware of the bank’s activities. Levy of penalty u/s 78 of FA - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal found that there was no allegation of any non-levy or non-payment or short-levy or short-payment and/or erroneous refund of service tax and none of the activities of the respondent/assessee is hit by any of the clauses (a) to (e) of Section 78 of the Act. Thus, on facts the Tribunal was satisfied that the finding rendered by the adjudicating authority was categorical and the same does not call for interference. Conclusion - The procedural requirements like registration should not impede the substantive rights of entities to claim Cenvat credit when there is no evidence of malafide intent or procedural non-compliance. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment addressed the following core legal questions:Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the respondent had never taken registration under Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons), 2005, and whether this affected their status as an Input Service Distributor.Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondent to take credit based on internal statements, which are not valid documents under Rule 9(I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Registration under Rule 3 of Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons), 2005Relevant legal framework and precedents: The requirement for registration under Rule 3 is a procedural formality for entities acting as Input Service Distributors. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allow entities to distribute credit for input services received.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Tribunal found no need for the respondent to register as an Input Service Distributor since there was no dispute regarding the input service credit.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal observed that the respondent, a nationalized bank, had no malafide intention to evade duty and was already registered with the Service Tax Department, paying taxes timely.Application of law to facts: The Court agreed with the Tribunal's factual finding that the respondent's activities were transparent and known to the department, negating the need for additional registration.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument that registration was necessary was dismissed as the Tribunal found no factual basis for such a requirement.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Tribunal did not err in its judgment regarding the registration requirement.Issue 2: Validity of Internal Statements for Credit under Rule 9(I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 9(I) specifies the documents required for taking Cenvat credit, typically including invoices and other formal documentation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the internal statements used by the respondent were based on invoices provided by service providers, thus validating the credit taken.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal highlighted past audits where the respondent's records were scrutinized, and no irregularities were found.Application of law to facts: The Court agreed with the Tribunal's assessment that the internal statements were credible and consistent with the invoices, thus complying with Rule 9(I).Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's contention that internal statements were invalid was countered by evidence of proper documentation and audit clearance.Conclusions: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the internal statements were valid for credit purposes.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court noted, 'the Tribunal found that there was no allegation of any non-levy or non-payment or short-levy or short-payment and/or erroneous refund of service tax.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that procedural requirements like registration should not impede the substantive rights of entities to claim Cenvat credit when there is no evidence of malafide intent or procedural non-compliance.Final determinations on each issue: The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial questions of law arose from the Tribunal's decision, which was based on a thorough factual analysis.The judgment highlights the importance of factual accuracy and procedural compliance in tax matters, emphasizing that substantial compliance and transparency in operations can mitigate procedural lapses like registration requirements.