2024 (1) TMI 457 - AT - Service Tax

Sub-contractors liable for service tax on cargo handling services but extended limitation period cannot be invoked for demands

CESTAT Chandigarh held that while sub-contractors remain liable for service tax on cargo handling services even when main contractors have paid tax on ... Liability to pay service tax on sub-contractor - Cargo Handling Service - appellant had not charged any service tax for the service of Cargo Handling provided by them to their client and hence not paid the same - main contractor has paid the service tax on the entire services - invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The issues were considered by this Tribunal in the case of Megh Raj Bansal Vs. CCE, [2023 (7) TMI 362 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. This Tribunal in the aforesaid case has considered in detail the various provisions of the services tax and the circular issued by the department and has held by relying upon the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of GST vs. Melange Developers (Pvt.) Ltd [2019 (6) TMI 518 - CESTAT NEW DELHI-LB] that the sub contractor is liable to pay service tax even when the main contractor has paid the service tax on the total consideration. Secondly, the Tribunal has also held in the cases, after considering the various judgment of the Tribunal and also Larger Bench decision that extended period cannot be invoked to demand service tax. In the present case the show cause notice was issued on 07.02.2007 for the period 2002-03 to 2004-05 and the entire demand is barred by limitation. The appeal of the appellant is allowed on the ground of limitation only with consequential relief, if any as per law. Issues Involved:1. Liability of sub-contractor to pay service tax when the main contractor has already discharged the service tax on the entire services.2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax.Summary:Issue 1: Liability of Sub-contractor to Pay Service TaxThe Tribunal examined whether a sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even if the main contractor has already paid the service tax on the entire services. The appellant argued that they were merely sub-contractors and the main contractor, M/s MRH Enterprises, had already paid the service tax. They supported their claim with a certificate from MRH Enterprises and referenced the master Circular No. 96/07/2007, which indicated that sub-contractors are independent service providers liable for service tax. The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in CST vs. Melange Developers P. Ltd., which established that sub-contractors must pay service tax even if the main contractor has discharged the liability. The Tribunal concluded that the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax on the services provided to the main contractor.Issue 2: Extended Period of LimitationThe second issue was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding service tax from the appellant. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred since the show cause notice was issued on 07.02.2007 for the period 2002-03 to 2004-05. They cited the Tribunal's decision in Megh Raj Bansal Vs. CCE, which held that the extended period of limitation is not applicable to sub-contractors for periods before the 2007 Circular. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the demand pertains to the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and the show cause notice was issued beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal referenced several decisions, including Max Logistics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, which supported the view that extended periods should not be invoked in cases involving interpretation of law and bona fide belief regarding service tax liability.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that while the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax, the demand is barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief as per law.Order Pronounced:The order was pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2024.