TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal ruling: Service tax demand on MMRS and MRSS set aside, RIPS upheld post-01.07.2010. Penalties reduced.</h1> <h3>Shri Thadi Satya Ramalinga Reddy Versus CCE, ST & C, Visakhapatnam</h3> Shri Thadi Satya Ramalinga Reddy Versus CCE, ST & C, Visakhapatnam - 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 421 (Tri. - Hyd.) Issues Involved:1. Liability of sub-contractors to pay service tax on Management, Maintenance or Repair Services (MMRS) and Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services (MRSS) when the main contractor has already discharged the tax.2. Applicability of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Services (RIPS).3. Invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding service tax on RIPS.4. Applicability of interest and penalties on the service tax demands.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of Sub-contractors to Pay Service Tax on MMRS and MRSS:The appellant argued that they did not discharge service tax on MMRS and MRSS because the main contractor had already paid the service tax. The Department, relying on CBEC Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007, contended that sub-contractors are also liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal, however, referenced decisions such as Nana Lal Suthar Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I and M/s Visesh Engineering Co. Vs. CCE & ST, Guntur, which held that sub-contractors are absolved from liability when the main contractor has paid the service tax. Consequently, the demand for service tax on MMRS and MRSS was deemed unsustainable and set aside.2. Applicability of Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property Services (RIPS):The appellant contended they fell within the exemption limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- if only RIPS was considered as taxable. The Tribunal clarified that all taxable services provided by the appellant, including those as a sub-contractor, must be aggregated to determine eligibility for the exemption. Since the aggregate exceeded Rs. 10,00,000/-, the appellant could not claim the threshold exemption.3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation for Demanding Service Tax on RIPS:The appellant argued that the demand for service tax on RIPS for the period prior to July 2010 was invalid due to retrospective amendments and the contentious nature of the taxability of RIPS. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue was contentious and the amendment made RIPS taxable retrospectively from 01.06.2007. The show cause notice was issued on 18.04.2013, beyond the normal period, and the Tribunal found the extended period invocation improper for the period before 01.07.2010. However, it upheld the demand for the period after 01.07.2010.4. Applicability of Interest and Penalties on the Service Tax Demands:The Tribunal noted that the appellant should have paid service tax after the amendment w.e.f. 01.07.2010. While sustaining the demand for the period post-01.07.2010, the Tribunal reduced the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, to 25% of the demand, as the appellant was not given the option of a reduced penalty by the lower authorities.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax on MMRS and MRSS, upheld the demand for RIPS post-01.07.2010, and revised the penalties accordingly. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential reliefs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
