2025 (3) TMI 575 - AT - Service Tax

Demand notice under Section 73 proviso set aside for self-assessed tax already deposited through returns

M/s Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida And Shri Mukesh Khurana, Director Versus Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida

M/s Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida And Shri Mukesh Khurana, Director Versus Principal Commissioner of ... ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Tribunal considered the following principal issues in the appeal:(i) Whether the issuance of a demand notice under the proviso to Section 73 was justified when the tax liabilities had already been accepted by the Appellant through the filing of ST-3 Returns.(ii) Whether the demand of Service Tax on cancellation charges, miscellaneous charges, and cheque return charges was legally correct.(iii) Whether the demand of Service Tax on services covered under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) was justified when the same was claimed as Cenvat credit by the Appellant.(iv) Whether the demand of inadmissible credit in respect of which invoices were not produced but duly accounted for in the Books of Accounts was justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue No. (i): Demand Notice under Section 73The Tribunal noted that all Service Tax Returns for the period from April 2013 to March 2016 had been filed, albeit after the due date. Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 allows for the filing of returns even after the due date, and late filing does not affect self-assessed tax. The Appellant had self-assessed its Service Tax liability and filed returns before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). Under Section 73(1B), if the tax has been self-assessed and declared in returns, no notice of demand is required. The Tribunal found that the issuance of the SCN for recovery of self-assessed tax was unwarranted and legally incorrect. The imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 was also found unwarranted since no notice was required under Section 73. The Tribunal relied on precedents where no penalty was imposed if the service tax was deposited before the issuance of the SCN.Issue No. (ii): Service Tax on Cancellation and Miscellaneous ChargesThe Tribunal observed that deductions made from deposits upon cancellation of bookings were penalties for breach of contract, not services. Under Section 66B, service tax is charged on services provided, and the definition of service under Section 65B(44) involves an activity for consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the deduction of amounts due to cancellation did not constitute a service, as no activity was carried out by the builder. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Jaipur Jewellery Shop, where it was held that no service tax was chargeable on cancellation charges. The Tribunal also noted that cheque return charges were penalties, not services, and thus no service tax was payable. For miscellaneous income, which included bank interest, the Tribunal found that interest was classified in the Negative list under Section 66D(n)(i), exempting it from service tax.Issue No. (iii): Service Tax on RCM ServicesThe Tribunal found that the Appellant could have taken back the service tax paid on RCM services as CENVAT credit, resulting in revenue neutrality. Since the Appellant was eligible to avail of credit on input services, there was no net revenue gain or loss to the Exchequer. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in V. F. Commercial Vehicles Ltd., which established that demand for differential duty is unsustainable in cases of revenue neutrality.Issue No. (iv): Demand for Inadmissible CreditThe Tribunal noted that there were no provisions for issuing a demand notice for late fees under Section 70. The Appellant had sufficient balance in the Cenvat credit account to meet service tax liabilities, and the non-debiting of the account was a technical error. The Tribunal cited precedents where interest was not chargeable if there was sufficient credit balance. Penalty under Section 77(2) was quashed as it was of a residual nature and not discussed in the SCN or impugned order.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal concluded that the issuance of the SCN for recovery of self-assessed tax was unwarranted. The imposition of penalties under Sections 78 and 77(2) was not justified. The demand for service tax on cancellation charges, cheque return charges, and miscellaneous income was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties for breach of contract are not services and do not attract service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, as per law.