2022 (7) TMI 926 - AT - Service Tax

Territorial Jurisdiction - appellant had taken registration in Rajasthan and Chandigarh - Demand of service tax in respect of various projects executed in Rajasthan - demand raised by Principal Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi - CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that appellant had taken registration in Rajasthan and Chandigarh on 17.01.2008 and 13.11.2006 respectively. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had obtained centralised registration on 18.07.2008 and had included their office of Rajasthan and Chandigarh in the said centralised registration as well. It is also a fact that the appellant had approached the Revenue for deletion of Rajasthan and Chandigarh address from the centralised registration and the same was allowed on 12.06.2013. All along the appellants were also filing their ST-3 returns separately for Rajasthan and Chandigarh and for the centralised registration (for operations other than in Rajasthan and Chandigarh) in Delhi - the Principal Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi had no jurisdiction over the appellant and, therefore, the notice issued to the appellant in respect of the appellants operations in Rajasthan, where they were separately registered and filling returns, is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the demand on this issue cannot be upheld and is, therefore, set aside - since the demand itself has been set aside the issue of admissibility of input CENVAT credit on the strength of challans becomes irrelevant. Valuation of services - benefit of abatement - contract entered with GAIL Chainsa and VB Builders - appellant had paid VAT (value added tax) on more than 67 per cent of the total contract value and paid service tax on 33 per cent of the gross amount received in respect of such contracts - applicability of Rule 2 A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that appellant had not provided any evidence of VAT payment and consequently valuation was done by the impugned order in terms of Clause 2 (ii) of Rule 2 A of the Determination of Value Rules, 2006 - It has not been denied by the appellant that the contract entered with GAIL Chainsa and VB Builders was in the nature of works contract and, therefore, the assessment of said transaction should have been done by classifying the said service as works contract. The assertion of the appellant is that it had sold goods and material amounting to more than 67 per cent of the value of the gross amount charged and paid VAT on the same and, therefore, there will be no duty liability even if assessment is made as works contract. The appellant has now filed copies of the work contract and VAT returns in the appeal memorandum. The same were not filed before the lower authorities - the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide afresh after obtaining evidence of the value of goods sold by the appellant in execution of the contract with GAIL Chainsa and VB Builders. Thereafter, assessment can be done under Rule 2 (A) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. If the assertion of the appellant that it had already paid tax on a value higher than that demanded by revenue, no demand would survive. Availment of claim under work contract service - benefit was denied on account of failure of the appellant to submit necessary documents - HELD THAT - The appellant has submitted certain documents in the appeal papers. The demand on the third issue is also set aside, and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to examine the said documents produced by the appellant and decide the case afresh. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi over operations in Rajasthan.
2. Admissibility of abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST for contracts with GAIL Chainsa and VB Builders.
3. Submission of necessary documents for work contracts to substantiate claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi:
The appellant argued that the Principal Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi did not have jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for operations in Rajasthan, as they were independently registered and filing returns in Rajasthan. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant had taken separate registrations in Rajasthan and Chandigarh and had included these addresses in their centralised registration for New Delhi by mistake, which was later corrected. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi had no jurisdiction over the appellant's operations in Rajasthan, making the notice issued without jurisdiction. Thus, the demand related to this issue was set aside.

2. Admissibility of Abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST:
The appellant claimed abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST for contracts with GAIL Chainsa and VB Builders, asserting that they paid VAT on more than 67% of the total contract value and service tax on the remaining 33%. The impugned order denied this benefit, stating the contracts were works contracts and should be assessed under Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not provided evidence of VAT payment before the lower authorities but had submitted such documents in the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order's findings and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to reassess after considering the new evidence provided by the appellant.

3. Submission of Necessary Documents for Work Contracts:
The appellant was denied benefits for certain projects due to the failure to submit necessary documents. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had now submitted these documents in the appeal papers. Hence, the Tribunal set aside the demand related to this issue and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to re-examine the case afresh, considering the newly submitted documents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the demand on the first issue due to lack of jurisdiction. For the second and third issues, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration based on the additional documents submitted by the appellant. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated above.