9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 534 - AT - Service TaxLiability of interest - point of taxation rules (PoTR) - payment of consideration of royalty to their foreign service provider - reverse charge - case of revenue is that as per Rule 3 of Point of Taxation Rules, the appellant was required to pay service tax on 06.7.2012 and 06.10.2012, respectively and therefore they are required to pay interest for intervening period - Held that - Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, overrules the other Rules and specifically applies to the case in hand and as per the said Rule, the assessee is required to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism, on 6th of next month of the month in which either they have accounted for or made the payment to service provider whichever is earlier. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has accounted the services availed for the period April 2012 to June 2012 on 31 July 2012 and the service tax has been paid on 06.08.2012. Further, in the case of July 2012 to Sept. 2012, it was accounted on 23.10.2012 and service tax has been paid on 04.11.2012, which is in compliance with the Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. Demand of interest unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against demand of interest for intervening period based on Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. Analysis: The appellant, a service recipient, paid royalty to a foreign service provider during specific periods, with invoices raised later. Service tax was paid on reverse charge mechanism after a delay. The demand of interest for the intervening period was confirmed, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that as per Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, they paid service tax on the accounting date or payment date, complying with the rule. Conversely, the respondent relied on Rule 3, stating service tax should be paid at the quarter's end. The tribunal examined Rule 7, amended in 2012, emphasizing payment date as the point of taxation for recipients, with exceptions for delayed payments. The tribunal found the appellant's compliance with Rule 7, paying service tax promptly after accounting for services, justifying the interest demand. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant.
|
