9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulted in issue of show cause notice dated 7.6.2005 demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 24,49,634/- in respect of service tax payable for the services provided by their subsidiary with the name and style of M/s. Pricewaterhouse Development Associates Ltd. (PWCDA), London. Further, service tax to the extent of Rs. 46,26,703/- was also demanded for the services rendered under Management Consultancy for which the appellant had failed to pay service tax. After the due process of adjudication, the entire service tax amount demanded in the show-cause notice was confirmed along with an order for payment of interest and penalties under Section 76 and 78. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above backg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns by the department, the Special Secretary to the Karnataka Government, vide his letter 19.11.2004, informed that PWCDA does have an office in India in Bangalore and thus were liable to discharge liability. Since PWCDA is subsidiary of appellant, the Revenue took the view that the liability of payment of service in respect of PWCDA will be on the appellant and accordingly, show-cause notice has been issued and the demand confirmed. ii. The demand of about Rs. 46/- lakhs has been made in respect of 79 invoices for ERP/SAP service prior to 10.9.2004. Such services remained exempt only w.e.f 10.9.2004 vide Notification No.16/2004. The appellant had availed CENVAT credit on the basis of photocopies of some invoices and could not produce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r remanding the second issue for verification and de novo decision. However, in respect of the demand for Rs. 24.49 lakhs, he supported the impugned order. He further argued that the appellant was the holding company of PWCDA and consequently, the office of the appellant is to be considered as the local office of PWCDA, London. The annual returns and the annexures to IT returns of the appellant clearly establish the above fact. He also added that the appellants were originally discharging service tax but sequent stopped doing so. 6. The dispute for payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 24.49 lakhs revolves around the question as to who is the person liable for payment of service tax for the services rendered by PWCDA, London to KPTCL. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered as related for various purposes, the two enjoy separate and distinct legal status. Consequently, it will not be proper to take the view that the address of the appellant is to be considered as the local address of the subsidiary company in London. Since PWCDA London is a non-resident service provider, in terms of the CBEC circular, the service receiver in India is liable to pay service tax. Since the appellant is not the service receiver, liability for service tax payment cannot be enforced on them. The position does not change because of the fact that the appellant was earlier discharging such service tax liability as per the authorisation given in their favour by the subsidiary company upto its withdrawal on 27.10.2003. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
