Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 635 - AT - Service TaxRecovery of service tax - reverse charge mechanism - appellant is receiving the taxable services from outside India and incurred the expenditure in foreign currency - Acquisition Expense - administration service - stock exchange fees - period 2006-07 to 2008-09 - Extended period of limitation. Acquisition Expense - demand on the ground that these are not in the nature of Legal Consultancy Service as the appellant could not produce any documentary evidence and therefore the service tax was confirmed under Business Support Services - HELD THAT:- The services received from the same service provider, part of the same accepted as a Legal Consultancy Service and demand there to was dropped. It is found that in respect of the services availed for which the demand was confirmed, the appellant have not produced the documents which support their stand that the service is of Legal Consultancy service. Therefore, this issue needs to be re-considered. Administration service - it is the submission of the appellant that there is no service provided by the their group company i.e. Dishman Europe Ltd. to them but this is reimbursement of expenses to their group company - HELD THAT:- Though the appellant claimed that this expenses are reimbursement but no details were brought on record to ascertain whether this expenses are on account the activity amount to services to the appellant by their group company or by any other service provider. Therefore, to finally come to the conclusion whether any service is involved and same is liable to service tax, details of this administrative service needs to be verified on the basis of source documents. Demand on stock exchange fees - HELD THAT:- It is found that no documentary evidence was produced to show that this is a statutory levy and the appellant have paid as reimbursement. It appears that the Stock Exchange has charged fees to the appellant against the stock exchange service, therefore, in the facts of this activity, the stock exchange- Singapore has provided the service to the appellant against stock exchange service therefore, this clearly covers under taxable service and appellant is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, demand of service tax on stock exchange service is upheld. As regard the demand of service tax on acquisition expense and administrative service, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-consider afresh - demand on stock exchange fees upheld - appeal allowed in part by way of remand.
|