Sub-contractor not liable for Service Tax penalty as main contractor already paid on entire amount before 2007 clarification

CESTAT Kolkata held that sub-contractor's liability to pay Service Tax on labour services was clarified only after Board's Circular dated 23.08.2007, despite main contractor paying Service Tax on entire amount. Prior confusion existed regarding revenue neutrality principle. Since appellant entered agreement in 2004 and main contractor paid Service Tax without objection, suppression of facts with intent to evade tax was not established. Extended limitation period invocation was unsustainable. Penalty under Section 78 not imposable. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for calculating Service Tax liability within normal limitation period. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the Appellant to pay Service Tax on supply of labour services.
2. Contention regarding the demand on grounds of limitation.
3. Interpretation of Circulars regarding Service Tax liability of sub-contractors.
4. Allegation of suppression of facts by the Appellant.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata addressed the issue of the Appellant's liability to pay Service Tax on the supply of labour services to M/s. Prism Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant had entered into an agreement for providing labour services falling under the taxable category of 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service' as per Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellant did not dispute the Service Tax liability but contested the demand based on the limitation clause, arguing they had not concealed any information from the Department.

Regarding the interpretation of Circulars, the Tribunal noted Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T. clarified that sub-contractors must pay Service Tax even if the main contractor has already paid it, allowing sub-contractors to claim CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal highlighted the confusion surrounding this issue, as a previous clarification dated 14.09.1997 had suggested sub-contractors were not liable for Service Tax in revenue-neutral cases. The Tribunal emphasized that after August 23, 2007, sub-contractors were obligated to pay Service Tax regardless of the main contractor's payment.

The Tribunal found no evidence of intentional suppression of facts by the Appellant to evade tax. It noted that the Show Cause Notice was based on TDS certificates and that no objections were raised during scrutiny of documents. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for Service Tax under the extended period of limitation was unsustainable and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded for calculating the Service Tax liability within the normal limitation period, with no penalty imposed on the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the demand for Service Tax within the normal limitation period, remanding the matter for calculation, and determining that no penalty was applicable to the Appellant. The judgment was pronounced on October 24, 2024.

---