Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 528 - AT - Service TaxScope of SCN - Activity done by the sub-contractor - demand of service tax from the main contractor (appellant) - Erection, Commissioning or Installation services to Assam State Electricity Board - Non-payment of Service tax - allegation that the sub-contractors appointed by the appellant did not include or pay service tax on services provided to the appellant - HELD THAT:- On detailed examination of the case proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of the SCN and further, that the directions given by the Tribunal have not been followed by the Ld. Commissioner in the remand proceedings. The Ld. Commissioner has negligently adjudicated the matter in remand proceedings without complying with the directions given by the Tribunal. No observation whatsoever has been made whether he has examined the subject contract entered by the appellant with the State Electricity Boards, the nature of services actually rendered by the appellant, nature or part of the services undertaken by the sub-contractors or the sardars, conditions of payment agreed by the Electricity Board, etc. - No discussion has been made as to whether he has examined the bank records / books and relevant ledgers or the difference in income amount and the collection amount, neither has he recorded anywhere in the order that the assessee has not submitted the documents desired by him for examination purpose. Even though the SCN proposed to raise demand of service tax on the amount paid by the assessee as a main contractor to the sub contractor for the services rendered by them, we fail to understand under which provision of law the assessee can be said to be legally liable to pay service tax as a service recipient during the period in dispute. The SCN as well as the adjudication order impugned herein merely holds that the assessee has contravened the provisions of Section 66, 67 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, by not depositing the service tax on services provided by sub-contractors - On perusal of the said provisions, it is found that it is only the service provider who is liable to pay service tax for provision of service in the category of erection, commissioning and installation services. The impugned denovo order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained and the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|