2010 (6) TMI 179 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal rules fees for services to Income Tax dept not subject to service tax

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the fees collected for services provided to the Income Tax department ... Stay- Business Auxiliary Services- Allotment of PAN to income tax assessee. Demand of service tax on fees collected from applicants of PAN. Job of collecting applications, processing them, preparing PAN card and supplying such cards to assessee is statutory function of Income Tax Department. Exemption cannot be claimed by PSU or others when such work is outsourced to another agency. Service tax paid after amendment of relevant provision. Held that- job undertaken not covered before amendment. Prima facie case in favour of appellant. Pre-deposit waived. Recovery stayed. Issues:1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on fees collected from PAN applicants for services rendered to the Income Tax department.2. Whether the job undertaken by the appellant falls within the definition of 'business auxiliary service' under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Whether the demand of service tax is time-barred.4. Whether the appellant is entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability to Pay Service TaxThe appellant collected fees from PAN applicants for services provided to the Income Tax department, which included setting up service centers, processing applications, and issuing PAN cards. The impugned demand of service tax was on these fees under the category of 'any incidental or auxiliary support service' as per Section 65(19) of the Act.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Business Auxiliary Service'The appellant argued that their services did not fall within the definition of 'business auxiliary service' as it was not incidental or auxiliary to the services mentioned in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 65(19). They contended that since information technology services were excluded, their work related to PAN cards should also be exempt. Reference was made to relevant circulars and tribunal decisions to support this argument.Issue 3: Time-Barred DemandThe appellant claimed that the demand of service tax was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts, and they started paying service tax post the amendment of Section 65(19) in 2004. The issue involved interpreting the provisions of the section and challenging the invocation of an extended period of limitation by the department.Issue 4: Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of RecoveryAfter considering submissions, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for the appellant. It was acknowledged that the services provided by the appellant were statutory functions of the Income Tax assessing authority but outsourced to them. The Tribunal referred to a similar case and the amended definition of 'business auxiliary services' to determine that the appellant's work did not fall under the previous definition. Consequently, the appellant was granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding the duties adjudged against them.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai covers the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.