9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd [2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we hold that the payment made by main contractor on the activity conducted by the appellant is considered as discharge of service tax liability by the appellant. Further we find that the payment made by the main contractor has not been disputed by Revenue. In that circumstances, we hold that the payment of main contractor on behalf of the appellant shall be treated as payment made by the appellant. We further hold that in the light of the Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the activity of maintenance & repair roads, therefore, demand on this account is also set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed by GSA. The Revenue came to know that the appellant is providing Site Formation Service and Mining Services since 2007-2008 without paying service tax. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by issue summons and asking records from the appellant. The appellant explained the reasons for difference in figures of balance sheet figures of ST-3 returns that as a sub-contractor, they provided transportation services to M/s GSA and Mining Services to M/s JSPL and paying service tax on mining service only which is reflected in their ST-3 returns and no service tax has been paid on transportation charges as these transportation charges were included in the value of service provided by GSA and they have paid service on that, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been exempted from service tax as per section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. from 16.06.2005, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax for maintenance repair roads. He further submitted that for the remaining liability of service tax, the appellant has already paid service tax but the same has not been examined/ verified by the adjudicating authority. In that circumstances, the matter may be remanded back to the adjudicated authority to ascertain fact of payment of service tax by the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant has provided service, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay service tax, therefore, also for payment of service tax for ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that circumstances, the Hon ble Apex Court has observes as under:- 10. Be that as it may, the Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B), dated 29.01.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put end to the controversy. The circular declares no demand visualized under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assesse or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act. 8. Relying on the above cited decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
