2015 (9) TMI 1446 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax from the Sub-contractor - Commercial construction services - Appellant contended that the main contractor in regard to the service recipient had already discharged the tax liability on the service rendered - Held that - when service tax can be demanded either from the subcontractor or from the main contractor, when the main contractor has paid the service tax, the subcontractor is not required to pay service tax for the same services rendered - Demand for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax for commercial construction services provided by a subcontractor when the main contractor has already discharged the tax liability.

Analysis:
The case involved a subcontractor providing commercial construction services to a main contractor, with a show cause notice issued for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 proposing a demand for service tax. The appellants argued that the main contractor had already paid the tax liability for the services rendered. They presented a certificate from the main contractor confirming the discharge of service tax liability. Despite this, the notice confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel referenced a previous decision of the Tribunal, Final Order No. A/50882/2015-SM[BR] dated 23/03/2015, which supported the appellant's position. The Departmental Representative agreed with this interpretation. The Tribunal, citing the decision in Larson & Turbo Ltd Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, highlighted that when the main contractor has paid the service tax, the subcontractor is not obligated to pay the tax for the same services rendered. The Tribunal applied this principle to the current case, noting the similarity in facts and issues.

As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the principle that if the main contractor has already discharged the service tax liability for the services provided by a subcontractor, the subcontractor is not required to pay the service tax again for the same services. This decision provides clarity on the tax liability distribution between subcontractors and main contractors in such scenarios, ensuring fairness and avoiding double taxation.