Evidence of actual non-monetary consideration is essential before service-tax demands can be sustained on notional valuation.

Service-tax liability on alleged non-monetary consideration requires evidence that vouchers, coupons, hotel stays or air tickets were actually received beyond invoiced consideration; unsupported notional valuation cannot sustain a demand. Discrepancies between balance-sheet figures and ST-3 returns may be addressed by adjusting excess tax paid in a subsequent period. Rental-income tax already discharged remains subject to interest for delay, while discounts received in connection with renting hoardings for advertising space do not constitute taxable services provided by the recipient. Recovered bad debts attract admitted service tax and interest. Penalties require evidence of fraud, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service tax could be demanded on alleged non-monetary consideration in the form of vouchers, coupons, hotel stays and air tickets; (ii) Whether the demand arising from the difference between the balance-sheet figures and ST-3 returns was sustainable; (iii) Whether service tax was payable on rental income and discounts received; (iv) Whether service tax and interest were payable on bad debts recovered; (v) Whether penalties were imposable.

Issue (i): Whether service tax could be demanded on alleged non-monetary consideration in the form of vouchers, coupons, hotel stays and air tickets.

Analysis: During the relevant period, service tax was payable on consideration received for the taxable service. No evidence established that the assessee received any non-monetary consideration, and certificates from service recipients confirmed that no amount beyond the invoiced consideration had been paid. A notional valuation unsupported by evidence could not sustain the demand.

Conclusion: The demand on alleged non-monetary consideration was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand arising from the difference between the balance-sheet figures and ST-3 returns was sustainable.

Analysis: The excess service tax paid in the subsequent period was directed to be adjusted against the amount arising from the stated discrepancy.

Conclusion: The demand based on the difference between the balance-sheet figures and ST-3 returns was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether service tax was payable on rental income and discounts received.

Analysis: The tax attributable to rental income had already been paid, though interest remained payable for any delay. Discounts received by the assessee while taking hoardings on rent were connected with the sale of advertising space and did not constitute a taxable service provided by the assessee.

Conclusion: The demand on rental income remained payable to the extent already discharged, with applicable interest; no service tax was payable on discounts, in favour of the assessee on the discount component.

Issue (iv): Whether service tax and interest were payable on bad debts recovered.

Analysis: The assessee conceded its liability in respect of the recovered bad debts.

Conclusion: Service tax of Rs. 72,047 on bad debts recovered, with applicable interest, was payable by the assessee, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalties were imposable.

Analysis: The record did not establish fraud, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement warranting penal consequences.

Conclusion: No penalty was imposable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unsupported notional levy on alleged non-monetary consideration and the levy on discounts were eliminated, while only the admitted or already discharged tax components and consequential interest survived.

Ratio Decidendi: A service-tax demand founded on alleged non-monetary consideration cannot be sustained without evidence that such consideration was actually received by the service provider.

---