9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transport agency which has not been altered by taking any action by the department, the cenvat credit of the said amount is also rightly available to the appellant.' Thus, it has been settled that once the service provider discharged the service tax where the service recipient is liable to pay the service tax, demand of service tax on the same service from the service recipient shall not sustain on the ground that the particular service which already suffered the service tax cannot be suffer the service tax twice on the same service. Accordingly, the service tax paid by the transport agency in the facts of the present case is the payment of service tax and not deposit. Therefore, no demand can be raised from the appellant, for the same reason once the amount paid by the transport agency being service tax amount, the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit. In the present case also the demand is not sustainable - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. C. L. MAHAR Shri. Gunjan Shah, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri. A R Kanani, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal of the revenue holding that since as per statutory provision, the appellant alone is liable to pay service Tax. Even though, the service provider has paid the service tax, the appellant cannot be exonerated from payment of service tax, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 3. Shri Gunjan Shah, Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no dispute that the service provider has paid the entire service tax. Therefore, even though the liability is on the appellant but since, very service tax has been discharged, the same cannot be recovered twice. Therefore, on this ground, the demand is not sustainable. He also placed reliance in the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited Vs. C.C.E C.-Anand vide Final Order No. A/12248/2023 dated 11.10.2023. 4. On the other hand, Shri. A. R. Kanani, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records. We find that there is no dispute about the law relevant to the present issue and the facts. As per the facts, even though the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned counsel, it has been held that even the service tax on GTA has been discharged by the transport agency, the person who paid the freight is not liable to pay service tax on the same service. Some of the judgments are reproduced below:- Elkos Pens Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata-I - 2019 (24) GSTL 652 (Tri-Kolkata) 5. I find that the issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the GTA service receipient is liable to pay service tax under the RCM, the Service Tax Rules. The said service tax has been paid to the exchequer by the service provider, who collected the same from the service receiver. 6. I find that the service tax has been confirmed against the appellant who are availing the services on the goods transport agency during the periods from 2007-08 to 2011-12. It is on record that the service tax on the said services stands paid by the transporter. It is the case of the Revenue that it was the liability of the appellant to pay the Service Tax under the reverse charge mechanism and the Service Tax paid by the transporter who provided the services, cannot be treated as a valid payment. However, the Revenue has not refunded the Service Tax paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ahmd.) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand was confirmed of Service Tax on account of Manpower Recruitment Agency Service in terms of the Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20- 6-2012. 2. The facts of the case are that in the month of July 2012 the appellant availed the Service of Manpower Recruitment Service and as per Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012, the appellant was required to pay 75% of the Service Tax and the supplier was required to pay 25% of the Service Tax. In one case, the appellant did not pay Service Tax and supplier also did not pay Service Tax. On pointing out by the Revenue, the appellant immediately paid Service Tax and in one case the supplier itself has paid 100% Service Tax instead of 25% Service Tax and the appellant did not pay Service Tax. Therefore, a case has been booked against the appellant demanding Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 @ 75% of the Service Tax on the value of manpower recruitments service received by them. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted as the supplier of the service, itself has pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., MeerutII-2016 (43) STR 292 (Tri.-All) 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that under the scheme of the Act, under Section 68(1), it is provided that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Further in sub-section (2) of Section 68 it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of such taxable services as may be notified (with effect from 1-7-2012) by the Central Govt., in the official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified and all the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. I find that the words in respect of such taxable service as may be notified , have been inserted in sub section (2) with effect from 1-7-2012 by the Finance Act, 2012. Thus I hold that prior to 1-7- 2012, under the provisions of Section 68(1), the tax already has been deposited by the GTA in the facts of the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
