TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indu Undivided Family, etc., where, the Department would normally adjust the amount paid by the service Recipient and re-credit the same to the service provider's account. Though it is strongly contended that the 50% amount paid by the service recipient cannot be re-credited to the appellant, the fact remains that the Department has re-credited the said amount from the service recipient's account to the appellant's account with effect from 28.02.2014. Thus, when the service provider (appellant) has paid entire 50% of the amount towards service tax and the service Recipient also paid the balance 50% of the service tax in time directly to the Service Tax Department on the assumption that the reverse charge mechanism is applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arajan Krishnamurthy for Mr.K.Jeyachandran For the Respondents : Ms.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel (Customs Excise) for R1 R2 Ms.V.Pramila for R3 JUDGMENT ( Delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy, J. , ) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.No.727 of 2018. 2. The above said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant herein, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.64/2017-ST dated 29.09.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 28.06.2021, dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 from the date on which, original payment was made by the service Recipient, i.e. from December 2013. There is no financial loss to the Government, as, it is only a wrong payment made for the same transaction by the service Provider and the service Recipient. However, this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge and also by the Settlement Commission and wrongly directed the appellant to pay the interest from the due date to till 05.07.2014. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is not liable to pay the interest and to that extent, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , confirmed the said order. 8. The only issue that arises in this case is, whether the reverse charge mechanism is applicable or not? 9. Admittedly, a sum of rupees 81,59,255/- being 50% of the service tax was paid in time by the appellant, and the balance amount of 50% was directly paid to the Service Tax Department by the service Recipient under the premise that the reverse charge mechanism was applicable. 10. In the present case, as admitted by both the parties, the reverse charge mechanism is not applicable to the appellant company. The reverse charge mechanism is applicable only to the individuals, Hindu Undivided Family, etc., where, the Department would normally adjust the amount paid by the service Recipient and re-credit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act for the service recipient to pay the service tax liability directly to the Department in the account of service provider and merely because, such facility has not been extended to the Companies, and it was limited to the individuals, Hindu Undivided Family, etc., it does not mean that there was complete bar for the service recipient to remit the service tax liability of the service provider in their (appellant's) account, in the case of an assessee, being a company, when the fact remains that, ultimate service tax has to be collected from the service recipient by the service provider and remit back the same to the Department. 10.3 Therefore, we hold that the procedure adopted by the service recipient cannot be found fault with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
