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>Service provider remains liable for 50% service tax despite recipient paying reverse charge share</h1> <h3>M/s. Ashutosh Upadhyay Versus Commissioner, CGST, Jabalpur</h3> M/s. Ashutosh Upadhyay Versus Commissioner, CGST, Jabalpur - TMI Issues:- Liability of the appellant for service tax on Works Contract Services provided- Interpretation of Notification No. 30/2012-ST and 45/2012-ST regarding service tax payment- Eligibility of the appellant to claim credit of service tax deducted by the service recipient- Dispute over payment responsibility between the appellant and the service recipient- Confirmation of demands for service tax, interest, and penalties by the authoritiesAnalysis:The case involved an appeal filed by M/s. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Jabalpur, challenging the order-in-appeal dated 20.4.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, which upheld the order-in-original dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant, registered for Works Contract Services, was found to have not paid service tax on services provided to M/s Jabalpur Garment & Fashion Design Cluster Association. The appellant had received substantial amounts for works contracts but failed to pay the service tax due for the period 2012-2013 to 2015-2016.The central issue revolved around the liability to pay service tax, with the appellant contending that it was eligible to claim credit of service tax deducted by the service recipient. However, the Tribunal clarified that the responsibility to pay service tax lies with the person responsible as per the law. In this case, Notification No. 30/2012-ST and 45/2012-ST required both the appellant and the service recipient to each pay 50% of the total service tax payable for the service provided. The service recipient had paid its share, but the appellant had not paid its 50% share and had also not filed any service tax returns during the relevant period.The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that it should be allowed to claim credit for the service tax deducted by the service recipient, emphasizing that the legal provisions do not allow the service provider to claim such credit. The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to demand service tax, interest, and penalties from the appellant, noting that the liability of the service recipient was limited to 50%, which was duly paid, while the appellant was responsible for the remaining 50% of the service tax.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contentions and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. The decision reaffirmed the legal principle that the service provider is obligated to pay the service tax unless specified otherwise by law, and the failure to fulfill this obligation can lead to demands for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
