Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (7) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anted immunity to the applicant/petitioner from prosecution and the order was passed. The petitioner has no grievance in respect of the other orders passed, except the interest portion directed to be paid by the petitioner. It is clear that it is an admitted fact that the applicant/petitioner has raised bill on the service recipient charging 100% of the applicable rate of service tax. Having charged service tax at 100% and paying only 50% of the tax to the Government clearly establishes short payment by service provider, attracting interest. Under these circumstances, the Settlement Commission held that interest is chargeable from the date on which the service tax became payable by the applicant/petitioner, as alleged in the show cause n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 2013. During the said period, the petitioner rendered works contract service to M/s.Charoen Popkhand Pvt. Ltd., Pune (CPPL) and also charged applicable service tax in their invoices on CPPL, the service recipient, which was also a registered assessee under the very same jurisdiction as that of the petitioner. However, the recipient reimbursed only 50% of the service tax amounting to ₹ 81,59,255/-, directly to the Government Account under Reverse Charge Mechanism. While questioning the action of the service recipient, the petitioner paid up the balance 50% of the service tax to the Government periodically, to ensure that the Government received the full service tax for the entire value of works contract service rendered by the petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice tax and there was no due. While so, the interest settled by the Settlement Commission is erroneous and contrary to the facts placed before the Commission. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Department disputed the said contention by stating that there was a short payment by the service provider with reference to the payment of service tax and in respect of such short payment, the interest was charged and the Settlement Commission also settled the matter in this regard. Once the matter is settled pursuant to the application submitted by the writ petitioner, there is no scope for further adjudication of facts on merits and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... early establishes short payment by the Service provider, attracting interest. The Bench also considers that the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in the case of their Service recipient permitting adjustment of excess payment of Service Tax for the period November, 2012 to December, 2013, towards their Service Tax liability for March, 2014 and April, 2014, does not lend support to the Applicant for calculating interest liability in their case from the date of passing of the Adjudication order, a position which is not supported by any legal provisions. It is only a case of excess payment of tax by a different assessee, dealt according to the provisions of law governing refund/ adjustment and it cannot be linked with the case on hand. Hen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts admitted or pleaded. However, such an adjudication cannot be done by the High Court in a writ proceedings, which require examination of original records and the admission statements made by the parties before the Settlement Commission with reference to the application filed under Section 32E of the 1944 Act. 9.This being the factum, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Settlement Commission, pursuant to the admission made by the parties, need not be interfered with. However, if there is any error apparent on record or if there is any factual error regarding the admitted statements, the Settlement Commission is empowered to rectify such mistakes by following the procedures contemplated. In this regard, the petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates