9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service recipient was not liable to pay service tax to the appellant, nor can the appellant evade a statutory liability on the strength of anything contained in the work order (contract). It is trite law that private parties cannot contract to evade or sidestep statutory obligations. The appellant was obliged under Section 12A to show service tax also in the relevant invoices but they did not choose to do so. - refund denied - Decided against the assessee. - ST/910/2011 - Final Order No. 25001/2013 - Dated:- 7-1-2013 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri M.V. Sridhar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sabrina Cano (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is against rejection of refund claim by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order rejecting the refund claim of the assessee as barred by unjust enrichment. 5. The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the incidence of the service tax in question was actually not passed on to the customer; that the contract between the appellant and their customer (work order dated 29-7-2005 issued under cover of letter dated 22-6-2006) provided inter alia for deduction of only income tax and did not provide for deduction of service tax; that the relevant invoices did not indicate any amount of service tax to be paid by the customer and therefore the incidence of service tax cannot be deemed to have been passed on to the customer. 6. Per contra, the learned Superintendent (A.R.) submits that the appellant company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25022 6. 316960 282093 34867 34867 7. 249095 221694 27401 27401 8. 64260 57191 7069 7069 9. 21175 18846 2329 2329 10. 159171 47791 5907 (calculated on 47791 Including ST) 5253 (calculated on 42498) 11. 66692 20008 2475 (calculated on 20008 including S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to have passed on the full incidence of tax to the service recipient inasmuch as the contrary has not been proved by the appellant. As I have already indicated, there is nothing in the work order to show that the service recipient was not liable to pay service tax to the appellant, nor can the appellant evade a statutory liability on the strength of anything contained in the work order (contract). It is trite law that private parties cannot contract to evade or sidestep statutory obligations. The appellant was obliged under Section 12A to show service tax also in the relevant invoices but they did not choose to do so. 9. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
