Revenue appeal fails where it identifies no error in the adjudicating authority’s service-tax calculations.

The Municipal Council received income from rentals of municipal properties, fees and user charges, charges for birth, death and marriage certificates, and sale of scrap.

A show-cause notice demanded service tax of ₹5,64,99,657 for the period 2014 to June 2017, with interest and penalties.

The Commissioner confirmed a demand of ₹1,93,44,081, appropriated ₹10,74,596 already deposited, and dropped demands relating to services treated as covered by the negative list or exempt, and to the period after the GST regime began in July 2017.

The Revenue appealed, contending that the nature and taxability of the activities had not been established through transaction-level documents and seeking de novo adjudication.

1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in dropping portions of the service-tax demand as relating to the GST period, the negative list, or an exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST without further examination of transaction documents.

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for de novo adjudication to determine the nature and taxability of the services under the relevant income heads.

Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was the basis for confirming the service-tax demand, and Section 75 provided for interest on unpaid service tax.

The Revenue’s grounds also referred to the negative list of services and Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20 June 2012, as relevant to whether particular activities were taxable or exempt.

The Tribunal cited no judicial precedent and did not set out a broader legal test; it assessed whether the Revenue had shown error in the Commissioner’s findings or calculations.

The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the records placed before the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s examination of them, including the conclusions that certain services were covered by the negative list, exempt, or rendered after the GST regime commenced.

It further held that the Revenue’s appeal—including its grounds—identified no error in the Commissioner’s calculations or findings.

On that record, the Tribunal rejected the challenge and the request for remand.