TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Auxiliary Service FY 2011-12 to FY 2014- 15 1,09,74,767/- 2. Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service under Reverse Charge FY 2012-13 to FY 2014- 15 34,60,834/- 3. Manpower Supply and Security Services under Reverse Charge FY 2012-13 to FY 2014- 15 24,61,331/- Total 1,68,96,932/- 2. The dispute emanates from a Departmental Service Tax Audit initially conducted in respect of the appellant for the period covering Financial Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, during which certain alleged irregularities in the payment of Service Tax were noticed. Consequent upon the audit observations, the investigation was extended to Financial Years 201213 to 2014-15. During the course of audit and investigation, the appellant produced its books of account, financial statements, ledgers, invoices, ST-3 returns, annual reports and other records requisitioned by the Department. Upon scrutiny of such records, including the accounting entries reflected therein, the Department formed a view that the appellant had not discharged Service Tax under four different heads, namely, (i) value of spares used in servicing of motor vehicles, (ii) Busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amounts reflected under the relevant ledger heads represented dealer incentives, trade discounts and accounting regroupings rather than consideration for any taxable service, save and except an amount of Rs.84,410/- relating to booking cancellation charges, which stood admitted and paid. With regard to the demand under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service under reverse charge, it was submitted that the Department had failed to establish the essential ingredients necessary for levy under the Finance Act, 1994 and the applicable notifications, particularly with respect to the freight on purchase of motor vehicles, towing charges and carriage inward charges, which, according to the appellant, were either not liable to tax or otherwise exempt. As regards the demand under Manpower Supply and Security Services under reverse charge, it was contended that the service providers being private limited companies, the reverse charge provisions were inapplicable and the documentary evidence placed on record in support thereof had been erroneously disregarded by the adjudicating authority. 5.2. It was accordingly prayed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the impugned Order-in-Origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neous Receipts' and certain 'Receivable' entries vis-à-vis the taxable value declared in the ST-3 Returns, as tabulated in Tables B, C and D of the Show Cause Notice. The appellant disputes each of these components separately. (i) Demand relating to 'Claim from Honda' and 'Sale of Cars' 10.2. Insofar as the demand pertaining to the accounting heads 'Claim from Honda' and 'Sale of Cars' is concerned, we find considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The materials placed on record reveal that the amounts reflected under the head "Claim from Honda" consist of various reimbursements and incentives received from Honda Cars India Ltd. under different schemes, such as incentives on target sales of parts, extended warranty incentives, corporate claims, exchange benefits, insurance scheme discounts, loyalty benefits, sales report incentives and other similar reimbursements. On a careful consideration of the nature of these receipts, we find that none of them, by itself, establishes rendition of any independent taxable service by the appellant in favour of Honda. 10.3. On the contrary, the Letter of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand raised under the head "Miscellaneous Receipts." We find that the appellant has satisfactorily explained that the said receipts comprise diverse accounting entries including Road Side Assistance booklet charges, free service coupons, booking cancellation charges, sundry balances written back and excess insurance claim amounts received from insurers. Except for booking cancellation charges, no material has been brought on record by the Department to demonstrate that these receipts constituted consideration received for rendition of any taxable Business Auxiliary Service. 11.1. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has itself fairly conceded its liability in respect of booking cancellation charges, treating the same as a declared service with effect from 01.07.2012, and has quantified the Service Tax payable thereon at Rs.84,410/- for the Financial Years 2012-13 to 201415 and paid the same, which was also brought to the knowledge of the ld. adjudicating authority during the adjudication proceedings; further, from the records, we find that tax towards 'free service coupons' also stood paid. Insofar as the remaining components of the miscellaneous receipts are concerned,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow Cause Notice nor the impugned order records any finding that the amounts reflected as receivables constituted transactions distinct from those already invoiced and subjected to tax. In the absence of such finding, the demand confirmed under Table C effectively results in taxation of the same consideration for a second time, which is impermissible in law. 14. Therefore, having an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,09,74,767/- confirmed under the head of Business Auxiliary Service cannot be sustained. The impugned order, to the aforesaid extent, is accordingly liable to be set aside. II. Demand of Service Tax towards Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service under Reverse Charge - Rs.34,60,834/- 15. The second component of the impugned demand relates to Service Tax of Rs.34,60,834/- alleged to be payable by the appellant under the reverse charge mechanism in respect of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15. The demand has been raised under three distinct heads, namely: (i) freight on purchase of motor cars (ii) towing charges, and (iii) carriag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rely on the nomenclature of the ledger entry without examining whether the statutory requirements of a Goods Transport Agency were satisfied. Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994 specifically contemplates issuance of a consignment note as an indispensable characteristic of a Goods Transport Agency. Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the impugned order records any finding that the service providers issuing towing bills had issued any consignment notes or otherwise satisfied the statutory definition of a GTA. 15.7. In the absence of such foundational facts, the activity cannot automatically be classified as GTA service merely because it involves movement of a vehicle from one place to another. The impugned order, however, disposes of this issue by simply observing that towing charges are "normally freight charges", without examining the statutory definition or the requirements prescribed under the Finance Act. Such a finding, unsupported by any factual or legal analysis, cannot be sustained. 15.8. Even otherwise, the adjudicating authority has failed to examine the appellant's alternative contention regarding exemption under Entry 21(b) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onent of the impugned demand pertains to Service Tax of Rs.24,61,331/- alleged to be payable by the appellant under the reverse charge mechanism in respect of manpower supply and security services received during the period in dispute. 17.1. The liability under reverse charge in respect of manpower supply and security services is governed by Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, which, during the relevant period, fastened reverse charge liability only where such services were provided by an individual, Hindu Undivided Family, partnership firm or association of persons to a business entity registered as a body corporate. Thus, the very applicability of the notification is contingent upon the legal status of the service provider. 17.2. In the present case, the appellant has consistently contended that the services in question were received from M/s. Kolkata Response Group Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kolkata Dynamic Services Pvt. Ltd., both admittedly private limited companies. In support thereof, the appellant produced sample invoices issued by the said entities, containing their names, registered office addresses, PAN particulars and Service Tax Registration Numbers. The PANs a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dated 20.10.2016 seeks to invoke the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by alleging, in general terms, suppression of facts and deliberate non-disclosure. However, neither the Show Cause Notice nor the impugned Order-in-Original identifies any specific act of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression attributable to the appellant so as to justify recourse to the extended period contemplated under the statute. 19.1. On the contrary, it is evident from the record that the demands under all the three surviving heads have been computed entirely on the basis of figures extracted from the appellant's own audited financial statements, books of account and ST-3 returns, all of which were produced before the Department during audit and were available in the normal course of assessment. Having founded the entire case upon records voluntarily maintained and disclosed by the appellant, it is not open to the Department to simultaneously allege that the very same facts stood suppressed. The burden of establishing the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period rests squarely upon the Revenue, which cannot be discharged by mere reproduction of the sta....