Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Eagle Corporation Pvt Ltd & 1 Versus Union of India & 4

2015 (8) TMI 157 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Clearing and Forwarding Services - evasion of service tax - whether the appellant is subcontractor - Settlement Commission rejected the the claim made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a subcontractor of M/s.MLL and that M/s.MLL was the main contractor of M/s.AMW Ltd. - Held that:- We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Settlement Commission while confirming the service tax liability of ₹ 31,01,599/- with respect to the services provided by the pet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and M/s.MM / M/s.MLL and even between M/s.MM / M/s.MLL and M/s.AMW Ltd.

The petitioner cannot be said to be a sub-contractor with respect to the transportation services provided to M/s.AMW Ltd. and therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that M/s.MM / M/s.MLL paid service tax on the transportation services rendered to M/s.AMW Ltd. and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax and/or the contention that there shall be double taxation if the tax is recover .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner is not a subcontractor and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay service tax on the transportation services / bus services provided by the petitioner to the M/s.MM / M/s.MLL. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the present petition. - Decided against the assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 6358 of 2015 - Dated:- 21-4-2015 - M. R. Shah And S. H. Vora, JJ. For the Petitioner : Kuntal A Parikh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lity of ₹ 31,01,599/- and interest thereon as regards the petitioner Company. 1.01. The petitioner has also prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to confirm whether liability of service tax on the obligations subcontracted to the petitioner Company by M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. in respect of service provided by this main contractor to M/s. Asia Motor Works Ltd. was discharged by the main contractor M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and be fu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pany for setting the false of Show Cause Notice No.V/ST/ST-AR-IIRajkot/ 204/Commr/2013 dated 7/10/2013 was ₹ 81,14,376/-, and upon payment of this amount with interest thereon, the case against the petitioner Company stands settled with all immunities allowed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission vide Order No.44/Final Order/ST/JL/2014 dated 23/3/2015 (Annexure "I"). 2.00. Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the petitioner is indulging in evasion of service tax on the services rendered under the category of "Clearing and Forwarding Services", an inquiry was initiated against them. That during the course of the investigation / inquiry, it appeared that the petitioner - noticee was providing services to different clients for contracted tour and providing bus services on contract basis. It also appeared that they also rendered services for bus ticket booking on commission basis and clearin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ients. However, they have not paid the said amount to the department. 2.04. That during the course of the investigation / inquiry, it was also appeared that the petitioner noticee during the period from the financial year 2008-2009 (upto December, 2012) also provided service to M/s.Reliance Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the RPL" for short) and M/s.Mahindra for the movement of the staff working in SEZ. 2.05. The petitioner noticee also submitted copy of the invoice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er the category of "Tour Operator Service". It was also found that the petitioner noticee had rendered services to the value of ₹ 8,35,91,013/- to the SEZ unit during the period from financial year 2008-2009 to 2012- 2013 (upto December, 2012). It appeared during the course of the inquiry that the notices had not paid service tax of ₹ 9,19,19,223/-, education cess of ₹ 1,14,192/-, total amounting to ₹ 1,17,61,800/- and the same was required to be recovered under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 7/10/2013, the petitioner noticee was called upon to show cause. as under :- "15. Now, therefore, M/s.Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd., "Eagle House" Eagle Chowk, Rajkot - the Noticee are hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rajkot having office at 6th Floor, Central Excise Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot within 30 days from the receipt of this notice as to why :- (I) Service Tax of ₹ 1,14,19,223/-, Education Cess of ₹ 2,28,385/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice tax of ₹ 1,21,17,344/- should not be recovered from them under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. An amount of ₹ 1,11,032/- already paid should not be appropriated against such interest liability; (IV)Late fee should not be recovered from them under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax rules, 1994 for failure to file ST-3 returns in time; (V)Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to make .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rected to inform in writing, as to whether they desire to be heard in person, before the case is adjudicated. In absence of the same, it would be presumed that they do not desire a personal hearing. 17. If no cause is shown by the Noticee or they fail to appear before the adjudicating authority in the stipulated time, the case will be adjudicated on merit and on the basis of the evidences available on records, without any further communication to them. 18. This notice is issued without prejudice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

towards interest. The petitioner paid for setting such a demand of service tax aggregating ₹ 5,45,824/- as regards services provided to M/s.Reliance Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "M/s.RPL" for short) in SEZ area, as according to the petitioner, the services provided to any SEZ unit was exempted by virtue of notification No.4/4/ST has frustrated by notification No.9/9/ST. The petitioner Company also paid for settling such a liability of ₹ 31,01,599/- in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

application, more particularly demand of service tax with respect to the services provided to Ms.RPL as well as M/s.MLL (According to the petitioner, the services were provided to M/s.AMW.). 2.09. The third respondent - Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot submitted a report on the aforesaid. That thereafter, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the Settlement Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 23/3/2015 accepting the petitioner's submis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order, the learned Settlement Commission has confirmed the demand of ₹ 31,01,599/- in respect of services provided to M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. 2.10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.00. Mr.Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Settlement Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/s.AMW Ltd. It is submitted that as such as per the agreement between the petitioner and M/s.MLL dated 16/3/2008, the petitioner was under an obligation to provide buses for transportation of employees of M/s.AMW Ltd., as a sub-contractor of M/s.MLL and for providing bus services for transportation of its employees and M/s.MLL has appointed the petitioner Company on back to back basis for carrying out the obligation of M/s.MLL in respect of provision of transportation facilities to the employees .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he bills on M/s.AMW Ltd. were to be raised by M/s.MLL as their contractor. It is submitted that in accordance with the said arrangement, the petitioner Company used to raise bills on M/s.MLL for the period in question. It is submitted that in turn M/s.MLL raised their bills to M/s.AMW Ltd. as regards the said business transaction, because M/s.MLL has been contractor for providing transportation services for the services of the said client. It is submitted that M/s.MLL in fact paid service tax to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly erred in confirming the demand notice with respect to service liability to the extent of ₹ 31,01,599/- with respect to transportation services provided to M/s.AMW Ltd. 3.02. Mr.Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such the petitioner submitted application before the Settlement Commission under section 32F of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). It is submitted that Chapter V of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under section 32F of the Act. It is submitted that the Settlement Commission has power to conclude any case involving any application before it and and order passed by the Settlement Commission on the case and any related matters, is final and conclusive. 3.03. Mr.Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that such a procedure is an alternative provided to the assessee, if they do not desire to undergo normal procedure of adjudication which would i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espect to the services provided to M/s.RPL and ₹ 31,01,599/- with respect to the services provided to M/s.AMW Ltd. It is submitted that as the M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. paid service tax in respect of the transportation facilities provided to M/s.AMW Ltd. 3.04. Mr.Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following Circulars issued by the CBDT (sic) in support of his submission that even as per the said Circulars issued by the CBDT (si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Manglore, reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 191. 3.06. Mr.Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the various tribunals in support of his submission that if the service tax is paid by the main contractor, subcontractor is not liable to pay service tax :- (1) SEMAC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Banglore, reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. (Tri. - Bang.); (2) OIKOS Versus Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

behalf of the petitioner has requested to admit/allow the present Special Civil Application. 4.00. Heard Mr.Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. 4.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner was served with show cause notice by the appropriate authority and the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why, Service Tax of ₹ 1,14,19,223/-, Education Cess of ₹ 2,28,385/- & Secondary & Higher Secondary Education .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t be imposed and levied. 4.02. On receipt of the show cause notice, immediately the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission by submitting the application under section 32E of the Act and deposited an amount of ₹ 81,14,376/- towards service tax liability and an amount of ₹ 33,62,429/- towards interest. However, disputed the tax liability of ₹ 5,45,824/- with respect to services provided to M/s.RPL and ₹ 31,01,599/- with respect to services provided to M/s.AMW Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ices to Ms.AMW Ltd. and as M/s.MLL had paid service tax in respect of transportation services provided to Ms.AMW Ltd., the petitioner being sub-contractor, is not liable to pay service tax. However, it is required to be noted that there seem to be some misconception on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner is the sub-contractor with respect to transportation services provided to Ms.AMW Ltd. Mr.Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed before us copy of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said agreement, M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Limited is referred to as "M&M-ML", the petitioner herein - M/s.Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd. is referred to as "BA" and Service Level Agreement is referred to as "SLA" for short. As per the said agreement / contract dated 16/3/2008, the petitioner is appointed as a transporter to transport the employees of customer from pick up point to plant and back and managing interplant vehicles movement. Article 5 of the said agre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncreased in accordance with the revised RTO Tax rate. The current RTO rate as on date of agreement is ₹ 300/- per Seat. 5.2. BA shall raise its invoice on M&M-ML by 1st of every month for last month and M&M-ML shall make payment thereon within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said invoice by it. M&M-ML, shall make deductions from such bills, only after providing to BA the details of such deductions along with reasoning fo such deduction and upon acceptance of such deduct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act / agreement between the petitioner and M/s.MM and M/s.MLL, the petitioner has supplied buses for transportation to the clients of M/s.MM / M/s.MLL. That the petitioner has raised separate and individual Invoices for supply of such buses to M/s.MM / M/s.MLL and in turn M/s.MM / M/s.MLL used to make the payment to the petitioner. During the aforesaid process, M/s.AMW Ltd. does not come into picture at all. Under the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s directly to one M/s.Asia Motor Works Ltd. (M/s.AMW). The applicants have clarified at the time of hearing on 16/2/2015 that they had raised the bills for the services to M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not on M/s.AMW. Hence, the service recipient in this case would be M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not M/s.AMW. The applicants have further claimed that M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. were the main contractors of M/s. MAW and that M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. have since discharged the service tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e to link each bill raise by M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. to M/s.AMW with the bill raised by the applicant on M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. Even otherwise, so far as the applicants are concerned, they have provided service to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not to M/s.AMW since the contract was with M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd., the bills were raised by the applicant on M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and payments were also received by the applicant firm from M/s.Mahindra Logistics Ltd. There is no pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the said judgements were discussed and distinguished in the case of Sunil Hi- Tech Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2014 (36) S.T.R. 408 (Tri. Mumbai)]. Thus, the Bench is of the view that the Service Tax amount of ₹ 31,01,599/- relating to the service provided by the applicant to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. is correctly payable by the applicant." 6.00. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Settlement Commission while confirming the se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dent contract for providing transportation services / bus services, between the petitioner and M/s.MM / M/s.MLL and even between M/s.MM / M/s.MLL and M/s.AMW Ltd. 7.00. In view of the above, once it is held that the petitioner cannot be said to be a sub-contractor for providing transportation services to M/s.AMW Ltd., none of the aforesaid decisions and the Circulars issued by the CBDT relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to hereinabove, shall be ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the provisions of the Act more particularly Section of Chapter V of the Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the proceedings before the learned Settlement Commission is an alternate to adjudication proceedings. The proceedings before the Settlement Commission can be said to be in the form of conciliation and it gives an opportunity to the assessee to approach the Settlement Commission by submitting application and accepting the liability by disclosing true and correct facts whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alance amount i.e. amount A-B (A minus B) and for which the Settlement Commission is required to follow the procedure as required under section 32F of the Act i.e. to call for the report from the Commissioner and/or Commissioner Vigilance and thereafter after giving an opportunity to the assessee, the entire amount of tax liability is required to be determined by the Settlement Commission. However, the Settlement Commission has no power, authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed quest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payable by the assessee as per the Department. Under the circumstances, we are afraid to accept the submission of the petitioner that the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to either applicability of the service tax and/or entering into the questions like the questions raised in the present petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that with respect to such questions, appropriate remedy would be to proceed with the show cause notice, as the power of adjudi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version