Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether service tax on goods transport agency services could be demanded again from the recipient when the tax had already been paid by the transporter, and whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable.
Analysis: The liability under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 fastened tax on the person paying freight under reverse charge. However, the invoices, challans and certificates showed that the service tax component had already been discharged by the goods transport agency and accepted by Revenue. In such circumstances, the same tax could not be recovered again from the recipient. The record also supported the recipient's bona fide belief that no further liability survived. Absence of suppression or misrepresentation meant that the extended period could not be invoked and penalty was not sustainable.
Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable against the recipient, and the invocation of limitation and penalties failed. The appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service tax on goods transport agency services has already been paid by the service provider and accepted by Revenue, the same tax cannot again be demanded from the recipient under reverse charge, and in the absence of suppression the extended period and penalties are not invocable.