9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 773 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - Works Contract Services - Revenue is of the view that the appellant is liable to pay service tax in terms of N/N. 9/2009-ST dt.3.3.2009 - HELD THAT - As the appellant has provided services to SEZ unit and in terms of section 26 of Special Economic Zone, 2005, the appellant was not required to pay service tax. Accordingly, in terms of Notification No.9/2009 dt.3.3.2009, the appellant is not required to pay service tax. Therefore, the demand of service tax raised against the appellant is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Liability to pay service tax on services provided to a unit in a special economic zone under works contract services. Analysis: The appellant appealed against an order demanding service tax on services provided by them to a unit in a special economic zone categorized as works contract services. The Revenue contended that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under Notification NO.9/2009-ST. The appellant argued that they were not liable to pay service tax based on precedents, including the case of Nokia India Pvt.Ltd. and Insta Pharma Limited. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that the appellant was indeed liable to pay service tax as per the notification mentioned. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to previous judgments to analyze the issue. They noted that the appellant's liability to pay service tax had been examined in the case of Insta Pharma Limited, where it was observed that the provisions of the notification did not impose any disability on the recipient of services in respect of taxable services consumed within the special economic zone. Similarly, in the case of Nokia India Pvt.Ltd., it was held that the provisions of the Act could not be interpreted to eclipse the procedural prescriptions of the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, providing services to the special economic zone unit, was not required to pay service tax under section 26 of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. Consequently, the demand for service tax against the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.
|
