Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 775 - AT - Service TaxReverse charge mechanism - liability of service tax - transport of goods by road services - centralized registration of all services - Held that: - Sub-rule (4) provides for single application for all taxable services for purpose of registration - The appellant did not produce any evidence that they have opted for central registration in terms of rule 4(2) as they have centralized billing systems or centralized accounting system. No such application for central registration for service tax purpose have been placed on record. A simple letter stating about operational control for the convenience of the appellant does not satisfy the statutory requirement of central registration as per Rule 4. In the case GTA service, the levy of service tax had been shifted from the service provider to the service recipient who is liable to pay freight as cosigner or consignee of the goods. This applies to specified categories of service recipient. The appellant paid identified amount of freight for the transportation of goods. M/s Lee actually paid service freight charges in terms of the sub-contract executed by them. M/s Essemm dealt with the transportation of goods. Freight paid to the transporter is by M/s Lee as agent of the appellant, who reimbursed the same. The appellant is one of the categories specified for tax liability on reverse-charge basis. The freight is borne by the appellant. Though the arrangement is such that M/s NTPC imported the goods as per the contract, the appellant is in-charge of reaching the goods at site office and, thereafter, for further work - appellant liable to pay service tax. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|