Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 104 - AT - Service TaxManagement of business consultancy service - Import of legal services relating to arbitration proceedings - reverse charge mechanism - Negative list - taxation of services in the hands of ‘deemed provider of service’ - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- From the details of Invoices, it appears that, these do not come within the purview of exclusion of charges for representation before courts or tribunals that, according to us, can be extended also to arbitral forums. The claim, made on behalf of the appellant, that only services rendered by ‘business entity’ was taxable in the pre-negative list era does not preclude the service received by the appellants from M/s Eversheds LLP from being taxed as the provider of service has been so described for the restricted purpose of excluding individuals. The issues arising from taxation of services in the hands of ‘deemed provider of service’ was, during the relevant time, fraught with doubts and assumptions and judicial light was thrown to dispel the attendant darkness only in recent times. Furthermore, as ‘deemed a provider of service’, obliged to discharge the tax liability, the appellant was entitled to avail of credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Motive for suppression, misdeclaration or evasion of tax is, thus, not patent. Nor do we find any substance in the impugned order or show cause notice to conclude otherwise. In these circumstances, the recovery of tax on the charges paid to M/s Eversheds LLP in notices that extended beyond the normal period of limitation stands barred. Demand of service tax confirmed for the Normal Period - Adjudicating authority directed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Renting of immovable services - Held that:- The appellant had discharged liability on rental of immovable property, along with interest, before issue of show cause notice. There are no evidence of any of the ingredients that could lead to invoking of the extended period in section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the provisions of section 73 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 precludes further proceedings. The imposition of penalty of ₹ 7,41,600 and of ₹ 40,375 fails to find sustenance in law. Appeal disposed off.
|