2024 (11) TMI 1184 - AT - Service Tax

Service provider's 100% service tax payment prevents reverse charge demand on recipient to avoid double taxation

Siddhi Ferrous Llp Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Daman

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that when a service provider has already paid 100% service tax on manpower supply and security services, the service recipient ... Liability to pay service tax on reverse charge basis when service provider has already paid 100% service tax - as argued entire 100% service tax has been paid by the service provider on the manpower supply service and the security and the demand of service tax on the appellant is duplicacy of the demand and the same in any case will not sustain. HELD THAT:- We find that the appellant has received the service of manpower supply and security service. No doubt as per the statute, the appellant being a body corporate is liable to pay the service tax on receipt of such services on reverse charge basis. However, it is also fact that the service provider have paid 100% service tax, in this position, once a particular service suffered the total amount of service tax, demanding the same service tax on the same service even from some other person is not correct as this will amount to double taxation on the same service which in any case is not permissible as decided in the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Shah Foods Limited. [2024 (8) TMI 1405 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] Thus it is settled that even though, the service recipient is liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis but once the service provider has paid the service tax, the same service tax cannot be recovered twice from the service recipient. Since, the service tax payment made by the provider of service is correct, the same is admissible as Cenvat credit in the hands of the appellant being a recipient of service. Accordingly, neither the service tax demand against the appellant nor the demand of Cenvat credit of the same amount is sustainable. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Liability of the appellant to pay service tax on reverse charge basis when the service provider has already paid 100% service tax.2. Eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit on service tax paid by the service provider.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability to Pay Service Tax on Reverse Charge Basis:The primary issue in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on a reverse charge basis when the service provider has already paid 100% of the service tax on manpower supply and security services. The appellant argued that demanding service tax from them would result in double taxation, as the service provider has already fulfilled the tax obligation. The appellant relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shah Foods Limited, where it was held that once a service has already suffered the total amount of service tax, demanding the same tax again from another person amounts to impermissible double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with this position, emphasizing that the revenue has already received the service tax, and thus, it cannot be demanded twice from different parties for the same service.2. Eligibility to Avail Cenvat Credit:The second issue concerns the appellant's eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax paid by the service provider. The impugned order had confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit on the ground that since the service provider was not supposed to pay the service tax, the amount paid was not admissible as Cenvat credit. The appellant contended that the service tax was paid on a taxable service, and since the payment was correct and legal, the denial of Cenvat credit was unjustified. The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including the case of Dhariwal Industries Limited, where it was established that if the service provider has paid the service tax, the recipient is entitled to Cenvat credit, as the service tax payment is valid and not merely a deposit. The Tribunal concluded that the service tax paid by the service provider is admissible as Cenvat credit to the appellant, and thus, the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit was not sustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal on both counts. It was determined that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on a reverse charge basis when the service provider has already discharged the tax liability. Additionally, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax paid by the service provider, as the payment was correctly made and recognized as a valid tax payment. The decision reinforces the principle that double taxation on the same service is not permissible, and the recipient is entitled to credit when the service provider has fulfilled the tax obligation.