Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 351 - CESTAT NEW DELHINon-payment of service tax - Construction Services - sub-contractor - non-filing of ST3 returns with the Department - revenue neutrality - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The period of dispute is from the year 2007-08 to 2011-12. The issue is no longer res integra as the same has been decided by a Larger Bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS MELANGE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. [2019 (6) TMI 518 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that A sub-contractor would be liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the sub-contractor in pursuance of the contract. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is noted that during the relevant period, the issue as to whether a sub-contractor has to pay service tax separately even when the main contractor had discharged service tax on the very same services was subject matter of litigation before several appellate fora. The Tribunal in its decisions in the case of SEMAC PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [2006 (8) TMI 24 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C. EX., INDORE VERSUS SHIVHARE ROADLINES [2009 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and URVI CONSTRUCTION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD [2009 (10) TMI 97 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], had held that sub-contractors are not liable to pay service tax. As there were conflicting views, the issue was referred to Larger Bench. In M/S MAX LOGISTICS LIMITED VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [2016 (9) TMI 1024 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - The extended period of limitation could not, therefore, have been invoked. While holding that the appellants are liable to service tax for services rendered by them as sub contractors, the same can be confirmed only within the normal period of limitation - Appeal allowed in part.
|