Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 457 - AT - Service TaxTaxable services or not - mining services - Appellant had been providing taxable services in the state of Jharkhand prior to obtaining registration in the state of Jharkhand or not - offices of the Appellant in Odisha and Jharkhand can be construed to be two premises of the proprietor or not - taxability of Mining Services provided by the Appellant prior to 01.06.2007 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, PAN AAAFI4408C represents a firm/limited liability partnership with the name starting with ‘I’; in this case Interstate Syndicate. Further, PAN AEIPS7146F represents an individual whose surname starts with ‘S’; in this case Sri Bhim Sharma. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant M/s.Interstate Syndicate is the proprietorship concern of Mr. Sharma and that they had obtained registration under a different PAN is factually incorrect. M/s. Interstate Syndicate is a firm/LLP, although no documents in respect of its constitution have been produced - under the eyes of law, M/s. Interstate Syndicate and Prop. Bhim Sharma are separate legal entities and the attempt on the part of the Appellant to mislead this Tribunal and the Adjudicating authority is unwarranted - the services provided by the Appellant in Odisha and the services provided in Jharkhand are to be considered as services provided by two different entities. The contention of the Appellant that they had not been providing services in the state of Jharkhand prior to obtaining registration in the state of Jharkhand is contrary to the evidence on record - as per the work orders and statement of Bills produced by the Appellant for the period prior to 31.12.2010, it is evident that the Appellant was accepting work orders addressed to its address in Jharkhand during the period from 2007 to 2010 - the Appellant was also raising invoices during the period from 2007 to 2010 which contained its address in Jharkhand. It is also observed that surprisingly, certain invoices raised by the Appellant did not contain any address. Therefore, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the Appellant was providing services from Odisha, there are no cogent reason to justify the mention of their address in Jharkhand in the invoices while there being no mention of their registered address in Odisha at the same time. Demand of Service Tax in respect of ‘Mining Services’ provided prior to 01.06.2007 - HELD THAT:- The Central Board of Excise & Customs (As it then was) had issued various clarificatory Circulars and Notifications to clarify the treatment of specific services, forming part of ‘Mining Services’, prior to 01.06.2007. Therefore, to the extent of the demand raised on the value of service of ₹ 70,35,178/- it is deemed fit to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority to calculate the actual demand payable by the Appellant keeping in mind the exact nature of service provided by the Appellant and the clarifications issued by CBEC from time to time in respect thereof. Appeal disposed off.
|