9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having merged into a single entity, there was no service provider or service receiver. Hence, the service for which the agreement was signed could not be provided also since the same would have amounted to providing a service to the self. Further, even Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 will have no role since the same would not apply to the case of service to the self. Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, which is the charging Section, requires the levy of Service Tax on the value of services other than the services specified in the Negative List, provided or agreed to be provided, by one person to another. Subsequent to the amalgamation in this case, there remained only one person for having provided service to himself/itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts leading to the present litigation inter alia are that M/s. Lancor Sriperumbudur Developments Limited ( M/s. LSDL for short) had entered into a construction service agreement with M/s. Lancor Guduvancherry Developments Limited ( M/s. LGDL for short); that both the above two entities subsequently merged with M/s. Lancor Holdings Limited vide amalgamation order of the Hon ble High Court of Madras; that at the time of signing the construction service agreement, M/s. LSDL had paid the consideration including Service Tax of ₹ 48,11,244/- to the service provider i.e., M/s. LGDL; the said receipt was declared in M/s. LGDL s ST3 return for the half-yearly period October 2013 to March 2014; that the above payment and receipt was duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the provisions of Section 11B ibid. would not apply and also relied on various case-laws in their support. However,the Adjudicating Authority after hearing the appellant, vide Order-in-Original No. 03/2019 (R) dated 21.05.2019, rejected the refund claim holding that the appellant s claim was hit by the limitation under Section 11B ibid. The Adjudicating Authority has inter alia referred to the fact of the Hon ble High Court passing the order of amalgamation on 03.01.2017 whereas the application for refund was made on 09.07.2018, which was beyond the one-year time prescribed under Section 11B ibid. The appellant having not met with success in its first appeal before the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in the Negative List, provided or agreed to be provided, by one person to another. Subsequent to the amalgamation in this case, there remained only one person for having provided service to himself/itself. 7.1 Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules, which is relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, reads as under : RULE 6. Payment of service tax. - . . . (3) Where an assessee has issued an invoice, or received any payment, against a service to be provided which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, [or where the amount of invoice is renegotiated due to deficient provision of service, or any terms contained in a contract] the assessee may take the credit of such exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
