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>Sole proprietorship and proprietor are same legal entity for taxation purposes under reverse charge mechanism</h1> <h3>Iris Automation Private Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-iii</h3> Iris Automation Private Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-iii - TMI Issues:1. Liability of the appellant to pay Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism for services received.2. Whether the demand for Service Tax is barred by limitation.3. Revenue neutrality in the case.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing control panels, received 'Engineering & Consultancy Service' from a proprietorship concern of one of its directors. The department alleged that since the proprietorship concern did not have a separate PAN number, the appellant should have discharged the Service Tax liability. The appellant contended that the services were provided by the proprietorship concern and not the director, thus not falling under the specified rule. The Tribunal held that the proprietorship concern and the director were not separate entities for taxation purposes, and the Service Tax liability should have been discharged by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism.2. The appellant argued that the demand for Service Tax was barred by limitation as the department had regularly audited their financial records, and the demand was based solely on those records. The Tribunal found that the demand was not sustainable as there was no suppression of facts, and the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) proviso of the Finance Act, 1994 was not applicable.3. The appellant claimed that the issue was revenue neutral as they could have availed CENVAT Credit if the Service Tax liability fell on them. The Tribunal agreed that the situation was revenue neutral, citing previous decisions, and found that there was no loss of revenue. Therefore, the demand for the extended period was set aside, and the penalty, if any, was also waived due to the lack of malafide intention on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order in appeal was without merit and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
