9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed part of the orders, matter was remitted to the Settlement Commission for consideration afresh in accordance with law and after notice to the stakeholders. 2. The respondent- M/s. Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of carrying out design, supply and installation of interior works mainly for commercial establishments. The respondent is registered under the Service Tax Provisions vide ST Registration No.AAACZ3238JST001. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence [DGGSTI], the respondent had submitted an application dated 03.06.2019 for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015. In terms of the said provision, the assessee was required to pay 75% of the tax. The tax paid in the ratio of 50:50 i.e., by the assessee and the service provider not being in conformity with the existing provisions of the Act applicable at the relevant time, the learned Single Judge ought not to have reversed the findings of the Settlement Commission in this regard. 4. Secondly, the learned counsel for the respondent/assessees argued that the photocopies of the invoices not being the required documents to award CENVAT Credit prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, learned Single Judge remanding the matter to the Settlement Commission for reconsideration afresh is not tenable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the invoices and hence seeks for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, the two legal issues addressed by the Writ Court has been considered. 9. As regards the issue of double taxation, we find no exception. Whatever the ratio, the tax in its entirety has reached the hands of the ex-chequer. Merely for the reason that there was no strict adherence to the ratio as envisaged during the relevant point of time for payment of tax insofar as the assessee and the service provider, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay the double tax. What is significant to note is that the discharge of entire tax amount is not disputed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
