Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (5) TMI 1234 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Appeal against demand of Service Tax under erection, commissioning, and installation services.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order confirming a demand of Service Tax amounting to ?4,86,83,693 under the category of erection, commissioning, and installation services. The appellant was engaged in providing these services to Jaipur Vidyuth Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and other organizations. An investigation was initiated based on information that the appellant was not paying Service Tax. The appellant provided their account details during the investigation, and various statements were recorded. The investigation alleged that the appellant was engaged in these services and not paying the required tax. A show cause notice was issued, proposing demand, interest, and penalties. The matter was adjudicated, and the demand in the show cause notice was confirmed, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant argued that they provided services along with materials and were also involved in selling machinery. The Dy. Commissioner verified the appellant's sales activities and submitted a report confirming sales and VAT payments. However, the adjudicating authority did not consider this report and confirmed the demand under erection, commissioning, and installation services, stating that no materials were supplied by the appellant. The appellant contended that their services should be classified as 'works contracts service' and not under erection, commissioning, and installation. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order based on these grounds.

The authorized representative argued that the material used in the services was consumed, justifying the classification under erection, commissioning, and installation services rather than works contracts service. Upon hearing both parties and examining the submissions, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the adjudicating authority's treatment of the Dy. Commissioner's report. The report verified the appellant's sales activities, but the adjudicating authority did not properly consider it, leading to a flawed decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the Dy. Commissioner's report, verify all relevant documents, and pass an appropriate order after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The classification of service was left for the adjudicating authority to determine during the adjudication process.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates