TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the assessee. Further, in view of Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, it was recorded that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on the activity of maintenance and repair roads and demand on this account was set aside. As a result, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification purposes whether the assessee paid service tax for the remaining part of the demand. Learned counsel for the appellant revenue has not been able to point out any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - STA No.8 of 2017 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 and again got registered with the department as a proprietorship firm. Vide dissolution deed executed on 12.10.2009, M/s Harpreet Kaur Proprietor of the firm took over all the liabilities of erstwhile partnership including its demand and debts etc. On inquiry, it was found that the assessee was providing the taxable services of Site Formation Service, Mining Services and Management, Maintenance or Repair Services during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 and was not paying the service tax. Therefore, the party was issued a show cause notice proposing demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 1,39,22,109/- after invoking extended period of limitation. Interest under Section 75 and penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf. Since the payment made by the main contractor had not been disputed by the revenue, it was treated as payment made by the assessee. Further, in view of Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, it was recorded that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on the activity of maintenance and repair roads and demand on this account was set aside. As a result, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification purposes whether the assessee paid service tax for the remaining part of the demand. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard read thus:- 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and peruse the record, we find that the appellant is engaged in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-incharge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act. 8. Relying on the above cited decisions, we hold that the payment made by main contractor on the activity conducted by the appellant is considered as discharge of service tax liability by the appellant. Further we find that the payment made by the main contractor has not been disputed by Revenue. In that circumstances, we hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
