9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Tribunal in 2014. In such circumstances, it is considered appropriate to examine this issue instead of remitting the matter to the Commissioner for taking a decision. It cannot be disputed that prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and the Master Circular dated 23.08.2007, sub-contractors were not discharging their service tax liability because of decisions of the Tribunal and this fact has also been noticed by the Larger Bench while referring to the decision of this Tribunal in URVI CONSTRUCTION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD [ 2009 (10) TMI 97 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ]. The Larger Bench also referred to a number of decisions which had taken view that a sub-contractor was not required to discharge service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was issued that a sub-contractor would also be liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor had paid the service tax. 2. Learned authorised representative appearing for the Department has placed reliance upon a Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi vs. Melange Developers Private Limited [ 2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri.-LB) ] that holds that even if the main contractor has paid the service tax, a sub-contractor has necessarily to discharge the service tax liability. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned authorised representative that the Commissioner committed an illegality in holding that a sub-contractor would not be liable to pay service tax if the main contractor had paid th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.08.2007 answered the reference by stating that a sub-contractor would be liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor discharged the service tax liable on the activity undertaken by the sub-contractor in pursuance of the contract. Such being the position, the order passed by the Commissioner to the extent it drops the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 22.10.2010 in regard to the work undertaken by the sub-contractor for the main contractor WPIL Limited and DC Industrial Plant Services Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to the contract would have to be set aside. 6. However, the submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for respondent that the period of limitation, in any view of the matter, could not have been invoked i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Commissioner for taking a decision. 10. It cannot be disputed that prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and the Master Circular dated 23.08.2007, sub-contractors were not discharging their service tax liability because of decisions of the Tribunal and this fact has also been noticed by the Larger Bench while referring to the decision of this Tribunal in Urvi Construction vs. Commissioner of Customs [ 2010 (17) STR 302 ]. The Larger Bench also referred to a number of decisions which had taken view that a sub-contractor was not required to discharge service tax liability if main contractor had discharged the liability. 11. Such being the position, it is clearly a case where the sub-contractor was under a bona fid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
