2021 (9) TMI 1127 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Valuation - Failure to include TDS amounts in the assessable value - HELD THAT - From examination of invoices submitted by the appellant it is observed that factually the observations of the original adjudicating authority are correct. The Revenue has not been able to establish any amount whatsoever has been deducted by service recipient and deposited with the Income Tax Authorities. There are no merit in this impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of name application filed by the appellant.
2. Demand of service tax raised against the appellant for failure to include TDS amounts in assessable value.
3. Discrepancies in original adjudicating authority's order and Commissioner's revision.
4. Lack of evidence regarding TDS deduction by the service recipient.
5. Deficiencies in the scrutiny of documents and invoices by the authorities.

Change of Name Application:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application for a change of name from "M/s. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd." to "AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited". The application included three certificates of incorporation documenting the name changes. The Tribunal allowed the change of name based on the certificates produced by the appellant.

Demand of Service Tax and TDS Inclusion:
The appellant was facing a demand for service tax due to alleged failure in including TDS amounts in the assessable value of services provided. The appellant argued that the net payment received already included all taxes, and no separate TDS amount was received. The original adjudicating authority noted discrepancies in the Revenue's evidence and dropped the demand. However, the Commissioner's revision did not address the lack of evidence regarding TDS deduction by the service recipient. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish any TDS deduction by the service recipient, leading to the appeal being allowed.

Discrepancies in Orders and Lack of Evidence:
The original adjudicating authority's order highlighted deficiencies in the scrutiny of documents and invoices by the authorities. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had not provided evidence of any TDS amount being deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the orders and concluded that the appellant's claim of not receiving any TDS amount was valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the TDS inclusion in the assessable value and the discrepancies in the authorities' scrutiny of documents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing full details of invoices and ensuring proper verification before raising demands for service tax.