9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1994 [the Act]. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that during the audit of records of M/s Mahavir Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [MIEL] it was noticed that the appellant had provided the 'Business Auxiliary Services' defined under Section 65 (19) and taxable under Section 65 (105) (zzb) of the Act to M/s MIEL and received an amount of Rs. 2,79,73,511/- during the period from February 2009 to March 2010, however, they did not pay the service tax on the said amount. Show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 30,98,812/- under proviso to Section 73 (1) by booking the extended period along with interest under Section 75 of the Act. Penalties under Section 70 read with Rule 7 (c) of Service Tax R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax liability on the appellant being a sub-contractor is no more res-integra and has been decided by the Larger Bench in Melange Developers (supra). Considering the scheme of the Service Tax read with the Cenvat Credit Rules and the master Circular dated 28.08.2007 issued by the Government of India, it was held as under :- "14. It can be used that if a main contractor has paid Service Tax on the entire amount of the main contract out of which a portion has been given to a sub-contractor, then if a sub-contractor is required to pay Service Tax, it may amount to 'Double Taxation', but this issue has to be examined in the light of the credit mechanism earlier introduced through Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 granting benefit of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority had set aside the penalty under section 77, however, maintained the penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Act. We find that the Larger Bench had noted the decisions both on the point that imposing service tax liability on the sub-contractor would amount to double taxation and also the decisions contrary to it that if a sub-contractor discharges the service tax liability because of the Cenvat Credit Rules, it would not amount to double taxation. In the circumstances, the issue pertained to interpretation of statutory provisions due to difference of opinion expressed by the various Benches and therefore, it is not appropriate that penal provisions be invoked. The present case cannot be set to be a case of suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
