TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices were rendered to the main client on behalf o these two parties. Though, the appellant provided only part of the service which was agreed upon between these two parties and the ultimate client, the same will be squarely covered under the tax entry of BAS– “provision of service on behalf of the client” - There is a reason for a bonafide belief in such arrangement regarding non-liability of sub-contractor when the main contractor is liable to discharge full service tax. Though the said principle is not applicable against the tax liability but the question of invoking extended period is to be answered in favor of the appellant - there is no case of fraud, mis-statement etc. in the non-payment of tax on this activity by the appellant, exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as India (P) Ltd. The road show and events were carried out by the appellant and the bills were sent and consideration received from the main party who was in contract with the client. Since, the appellants did not organize the events, road shows directly for the client, the services rendered were sought to be taxed as Business Auxiliary Service in terms of Section 65 (19) (vi) provision of service on behalf of client . The second issue is with reference to certain services rendered by the appellant through M/s Lintas India (P) Ltd. for UNICEF. The claim for exemption under Notification No. 16/2002-ST was denied for such services as the appellants did not provide service directly to UNICEF. A total service tax demand of ₹ 9,42,15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be squarely covered under the tax entry of BAS provision of service on behalf of the client . As such, we hold that the appellant s liability for service tax cannot be disputed. 4. However, we are inclined to agree with the appellant on the ground of limitation. The tax liability and the sub-contractor when the main contractor discharged service tax was a matter of dispute and there were contrary circulars prior to 2007. Further, the ground of bonafide belief can be invoked in the present case as the main parties who entered into agreement with the ultimate client were charging such client alongwith service tax as claimed by the appellant. There is a reason for a bonafide belief in such arrangement regarding non-liability of sub-con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
