9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand relates to the services provided by the said organization located in USA. It is also admitted that the said organization enjoys immunity from payment of service tax. In the ordinary course the tax liability is on the service provider and it is only when the services are obtained from abroad and service provider has no office in India, the tax liability gets shifted to the service recipient, who is required to pay the tax on reverse charge basis. Thus, though there is no obligation on the part of the service recipient to pay the tax but in case service is received from a foreign entity, not having any office in India, the service tax liability gets shifted to the service recipient on reverse charge basis. As such it is not the liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir branches/offices in India at Kolkata and who were discharging all their tax liabilities accordingly. 4. The dispute in the present appeal relates to ECB obtained by the respondent from International Finance Corporation Washington, USA (hereinafter referred to as IFC). Inasmuch as the said corporation does not have any office in India, Revenue entertained a view that the respondents are liable to pay service tax on such services, on reverse charge basis, in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 2006. 5. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 04/06/2009, raising the demand, by invoking the longer period of limitation. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discussed this contention of the appellant and held that since in the instant case, the liability to pay tax is not on IFC but on the appellant and for that reason such provision has not been specifically discussed in statute as immunity provided to the IFCs is not damaged if the liability of the tax has been passed on to the person in India. I do not agree with the interpretation of the Adjudicating Authority. Supposing, IFC has a business premises in India, then under the provisions of International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958, any operation carried out by them would have been immune from the taxation laws of India. Since they do not have any business office within India, it cannot be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erse charge basis, is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. 8. As against the above reasoning, Revenue has not disputed the fact that IFC enjoys immunity from payment of tax. Their only contention is that tax is not being confirmed against IFC but the confirmation is against the assessee, who is located in India. We do not find any merits in the above contention of the Revenue. Admittedly, the service provider is IFC and the demand relates to the services provided by the said organization located in USA. It is also admitted that the said organization enjoys immunity from payment of service tax. In the ordinary course the tax liability is on the service provider and it is only when the services are obtained from abroad and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
