Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Tutor Vista Global Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ... on 11 June, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order . 20960 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/MISC/402/2012 in ST/1718/2011-DB ST/Stay/1087/2011 in ST/1718/2011-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/1718/2011-DB [Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 57/2011-ST dated 25/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore] TUTOR VISTA GLOBAL PVT LTD NO.4, SERVICE ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 071 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, C.A. HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES #1010, 1st floor(Above Corp.Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, BANGALORE - 560041 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 11/06/2014 Date of Decision: 11/06/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Service tax of Rs. 3,36,32,717/- has been held to be payable by the appellant as a receiver of service from the parties abroad under the service category of business auxiliary service with interest. Period involved is April 2005 to March 2009 and further penalties under various sections have also been imposed. The matter had come up earlier also and was adjourned since there was a dispute between the parties as to the actual amount paid by the appellant towards the arrears of service tax.
2. Today when the matter was called, the learned A.R. submitted that the claim of the appellant that they had paid the entire amount of tax as computed by them is not correct and he draws our attention to the report dated 31.12.2013 wherein it has been reported that the appellants have not made any specific payments toward arrears other than Rs. 1,27,67,235/-.
3. However, the learned Chartered Accountant draws our attention to a copy of the ST-3 returns and shows from therein that an amount of 75,00,000/- paid in 2009 was actually paid towards arrears only. We find this claim to be correct. At the same time the learned Chartered Accountant also admitted that there may be short payment to the extent of Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs. It is his submission that the demand has been confirmed even for the period prior to 18.04.2006 and law is settled as far as this period is concerned and demand could not have been confirmed under this category. He also submits that the appellant is challenging the taxability itself. Further, he also submits that extended period could not have been invoked in this case since if the appellants were to pay service tax, they could have taken the credit and therefore by delaying payment or by not paying, no benefit accrues to them.
4. We have considered the submissions. We find that the observations in the report given by the Department that payment of service tax by debiting CENVAT credit cannot be taken into account is not correct and once this is done, as submitted by the learned counsel, the amount paid by them falls short of only Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs. Further, it is submitted that the taxability of service is being challenged and quantification is also being challenged. Under these circumstances, we consider that this is a fit case for hearing the appeal without predeposit but this is also a fit case for remanding at this stage itself since there is a need for detailed consideration of the actual amounts paid, duty demand prior to 18.04.2006 and the quantification thereof, reconciliation of amount paid vis-a-vis the amount payable etc. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request to adjudicate the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Pnr....
2 2