TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax payable thereon inclusive of service tax payable by service provider. Notification 33/12-ST dated 30.06.2012 indicates that if the turnover of the service provider is less than 10 lakhs, the service recipient shall be obliged to pay his share of service tax (of the service provider also) under the partial reverse charge mechanism. There is no denial of the fact that the idea behind introduction of this procedure was to bring unorganised sector on record so that the proper books of account are maintained by them, even though they are not aware about - 6 - ST/85989/2018 the various statutory liability cast on them and the same will remove the difficulty of the government in tracing out the service provider who are liable to pay ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its Hyderabad unit certain works contract services were availed by the appellant from one M/s Satish Engineering, a non-corporate works contract service provider, but in conformity to Notification No. 30/2012-ST, 50% Service Tax on the total assessable tax value was not paid under Partial Reverse Charge Mechanism by the appellant for the period between January 2013 and January 2014, that came to the knowledge of the appellant during the audit. Appellant firm promptly paid the amount of Service Tax of its 50% tax value totalling ₹56,394/- along with interest of ₹4092/- on 06.03.2014 and 09.05.2014 respectively, even before audit report was received on 02.08.2014 wherein it was advised to penalty @ 1% per month till payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar transaction in availing such services and the said mechanism was newly introduced which was not having a simple method of calculation, human error contributed to such non-payment of small tax liability of ₹56,394/-, considering the genuineness of the multinational company of the appellant s stature which pays more than of ₹15 crores of Service Tax in a financial year. Appeal memo further reveals that the transaction was declared in the monthly ER-I returns along with CENVAT return under Rule 9(7) for which no suppression can be attributed to the appellant. It relied upon the various judgements in his support as described below: (a) CCE ST. LTU Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Limited [2012 (26) STR 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny purpose of service in execution of work contract by an individual, HUF or partnership firm whether registered or not including association of persons are required to pay 25% of service tax and the service receiver is required to pay 75% of the said tax. Going by the - 5 - ST/85989/2018 backdrop of bringing such provision into the statute book, if various literatures are referred, it can be found that this Notification 30/12 has brought a new legislation of taxation to existing system of reverse charge mechanism by including partial reverse charge mechanism as a new system in respect of specified services provided for certain category of services fixing liability of payment of service tax partially on the service provider and partiall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is from an organised sector or unorganised sector, it would be difficult for the service recipient to trace out the same. Circular no. 30/12 is applicable to individual i.e. proprietorship firm, HUF, partnership firm and association of persons for whom this bifurcation of 75:25 is required to be made for the purpose of payment of service tax. 6. Further no documents/invoices concerning such payment being made to the service provider is produced before the lower authorities, so as to conform if the invoice(s) were raised in conformity to the procedure meant for compliance of such Notification No. 30/2012-ST and nothing is found from the record to indicate that tax component has been fully realised from the service receiver by the servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit availed as inadmissible, suppression of fact is made out. It cannot also be established that appellant had any malafide intention to suppress its duty liability from the department and the case law JSW Steel Limited (supra) on which Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on in his Order-in-Appeal relates to differential tax payment. On the other hand, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. Vs. CCE [2007 (260) ELT 188 (SC)]. 8. In view of the above observation and in view of the fact that issue is a bonafide dispute of legal interpretation of the newly introduced provision coupled with transaction concerning availment of such services has been reflected in ST-I monthly return, no malafide ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
