Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2577

Payment of service tax by main contractor cannot absolve sub-contractor.

Case:- BAKRESWAR CO-OP. MULTIPURPOSE LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., BOLPUR
 
Citation:-2014 (36) S.T.R. 1059 (Tri. - Kolkata)
 

Brief facts:- This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 1.18 crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty under Section76 (not quantified) and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77(1A) and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Appellant’s contention:-  The ld. Advocate Shri S.N. Sinha Mahapatra for the applicant submits that the applicant is a co-operative society comprising of local persons who provide services of manpower to Bakreswar Thermal Project as sub-contractor to various contractors, M/s. DC Industrial Plant Service Pvt. Ltd., M/s. P.E. Electors Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. The said contractors have been appointed by M/s. West Bengal Power Development & M/s. BHEL for the said project. He submits that the co-operative society is more or less working on no profit no loss basis. It is his submission that since the value of the manpower supply received from the said contractor are included in the total project cost, and once the main contractor/service receiver had discharged Service Tax on the total value including the value of labour supplied by the applicant, no Service Tax is required to be paid by the applicant separately. The ld. Advocate also placed reliance on various services rendered by the principal contractors. The ld. Advocate further submitted that they had already deposited an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs.
 
Respondent’s contention:- Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the main contractors have deposited the Service Tax in respect of the services they have rendered to Bakreswar Thermal Power Project. It is his submission that even though in the Taxable value of said services rendered by the maincontractors, the value of manpower supply services rendered by theapplicant are also included, it cannot absolve the applicant from the liability of Service Tax on manpower supply service as both are independent service provider and the services are also different. It is his submission that the claim of the applicant that as a sub-contractor, the main contractor has discharged the service tax in the present circumstances, cannot hold good as the service provider and the services rendered in each case are different.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- They find that thepresent service tax demand is raised on the applicant, who suppliedmanpower to service receivers, who in turn rendered constructionservices to the thermal project. It is the claim of the applicant that as a sub-contractor to the service receiver, the amount of Service Tax paid by the service receiver on the total taxable value of construction service, be considered as discharge of their Service Tax liability. The Revenue on the other hand disputes that the service receiver has received the services under the category of manpower supply and rendered services under the category of construction services. Therefore, the service tax paid by the service receiver under the head ‘construction services’ cannot absolve the present applicant from the liability of Service Tax on manpower supply service. Prima facie, they agree with the Revenue for the simple reason that to avoid double taxation, mechanism of Cenvat credit has been introduced in the system. In the event, the Service Tax paid on manpower supply is used in providing construction service then the service receiver is allowed to take credit and discharge his tax liability. In the result, the applicant could not make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a co-operative society of local labourers and not pursuing any profit motive, also keeping in view the interest of Revenue, it would be proper to direct the applicant to deposit Rs. 15.00 lakhs in addition to the amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs already deposited by the applicant which is not disputed by the Revenue. Consequently, the applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 15.00 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit of the said amount, balance dues adjudged would stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Compliance to be reported on 28-8-2014. Failure to deposit the said amount would result in dismissal of appeal without further notice.
 
Decision:- Application disposed off.
 
Comment:-The analogy of the case is that the sub-contractor cannot dispute the service tax payable by them on rendering services under the category of ‘supply of manpower’ on the ground that the principal contractor has discharged service tax. This is for the reason that the credit of Service Tax paid on manpower supply used in providing construction service will be admissible to the principal contractor and as such, there is no double taxation. Accordingly, the stay application was disposed off by ordering pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com