Argument that respondent is a service receiver and hence is not eligible for centralized registration is meaningless and defeats objective of registration
THE CCE, Pune-III is in appeal against an order passed by the CCE(A), Pune-III. Vide the impugned order the appellate authority had allowed the facility of centralized registration to the respondent on the ground that in respect of GTA service, the recipient of the service has to discharge tax liability and if the recipient maintains centralized accounting system in the head office, such office can be allowed to be registered with the department for the purpose of discharge of service tax liability.
The Revenue's grievances are as follows -
+ the respondent's request for centralized registration was rejected vide letter dated 16/12/2005 and since this letter is not an appealable order the appellate authority should not have entertained the appeal;
+ as per rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, only service providers are eligible for centralized registration subject to certain conditions and not service recipients.
The respondent chose to remain absent probably because they had obtained what they had sought and the matter is six years old.
The Bench observed that as regards the first ground, the law is already settled by the decision of the CESTAT in the case of Bhagwati Gases Ltd. 2008-TIOL-879-CESTAT-DEL inasmuch as if a letter conveys the ground of rejection and also the rejection, the same can be treated as an order eligible for appellate remedies.
On the second ground raised in appeal, the Bench had the following to say -
"5.2 As regards the second ground that the respondent being a service receiver is not eligible for centralized registration, this argument is meaningless and defeats the objective of registration. The purpose of registration in indirect tax laws is to identify the tax payer. In this particular case, the tax payer or the person liable to pay tax is the receiver of the service and for making the payment of service tax, the respondent is required to get registered with the department. If that be so, we do not understand how the benefit of centralized registration cannot be granted, if he satisfies the conditions for such centralized registration. In the instant case there is no dispute that the respondent is maintaining centralized accounts in their head office. Therefore, the respondent is rightly entitled to centralized registration."
Holding that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority, the Revenue appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merits.