2019 (5) TMI 1484 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - appellant s jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities at Noida, after initiation of proceedings, confirmed the Service Tax demand in respect of the entire construction activities done by the appellant at various places like Maharashtra, Pune Delhi, etc. - case of appellant is that the Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida, has jurisdiction only for Noida and could not have confirmed the demand of Service Tax in respect of other places like Maharashtra, Pune Delhi, etc. - HELD THAT - The jurisdiction of a Commissioner to raise and confirm the Service Tax is limited only to an assessee falling within its jurisdiction. It was accordingly observed that inasmuch as Noida premises were registered only for the services being offered from Noida and the same was not a centralized registration, the confirmation of demand in respect of the activities undertaken at other places was not in accordance with law. Inasmuch as, the Commissioner had not examined the jurisdictional aspect, the matter was remanded to him. There is neither any observations by the Adjudicating Authority nor any findings to the effect that registration at Noida was a Centralized registration, covering all the activities being provided by them at other places. Even in terms of the order referred to and relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority, it is the Commissioner in whose territorial jurisdiction, the registered office of the service provider is located, has the jurisdiction to decide. It is the assessee s case that Noida office is not their registered office and the registration granted to them was only for the services to be provided from Noida. In the absence of any finding to the effect that Noida office was registered office, there are no merits in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority - As such, we once again are constraint to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision on all the points including the point of jurisdiction, after verifying the factual positions - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Service Tax Authorities at Noida over construction services provided at various places.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the jurisdictional issue concerning the Service Tax Authorities at Noida over construction services provided at different locations. The appellant contested the Service Tax demand imposed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida, arguing that the jurisdiction was limited to Noida and did not extend to places like Maharashtra, Pune, and Delhi where construction activities were undertaken. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's registration was specific to a project in Greater Noida and not for services in other locations. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's jurisdiction is limited to the assessee within its defined territory. Citing relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh examination of the jurisdictional aspect.

In response to the remand, the Commissioner reiterated that the services were provided from the registered premises in Greater Noida, falling under Noida Commissionerate's jurisdiction. Despite the appellant's claim that Noida was not their registered office for all services, the Commissioner relied on a precedent to assert jurisdiction based on the location of the service provider's registered office. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's reasoning lacking, as there was no evidence of centralized registration covering activities in various places. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order again and directed the Adjudicating Authority to reevaluate all aspects, including jurisdiction, based on factual verification.

The judgment underscores the importance of establishing the jurisdiction of Service Tax Authorities based on the location of the registered office of the service provider. It highlights the need for a clear delineation of jurisdictional boundaries and emphasizes the significance of factual evidence in determining the applicability of Service Tax demands. The repeated remand orders signify the meticulous scrutiny required in resolving jurisdictional disputes to ensure compliance with legal provisions and precedents. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural diligence essential in adjudicating matters involving multiple service locations and the necessity for precise jurisdictional determinations to uphold the integrity of tax assessments.