Revenue neutrality in reverse-charge legal services can defeat service-tax demands where corresponding CENVAT credit is fully available.

Revenue neutrality under the reverse charge mechanism is explained where a business entity receiving taxable legal services from an advocate or law firm bears the service-tax liability but can claim corresponding CENVAT credit for taxable output services. As payment of tax and immediate availability of credit produce no net revenue impact, the tax demand is described as unsustainable in such circumstances. The note further states that where the underlying reverse-charge liability fails on revenue-neutrality grounds, consequential interest and penalty cannot survive. The stated principle is that full availability of CENVAT credit to the same assessee defeats the reverse-charge tax demand and related penal liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service-tax demand on legal services received under the reverse charge mechanism was sustainable; (ii) Whether penalty for non-payment of such service tax was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether service-tax demand on legal services received under the reverse charge mechanism was sustainable.

Analysis: Legal services supplied by an advocate or a firm of advocates to a business entity were taxable, and the recipient bore the entire tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism. However, the assessee was entitled to avail CENVAT credit of the tax payable on those input legal services for providing taxable output services. Payment of tax and availment of corresponding credit would therefore create a revenue-neutral situation. Applying the settled treatment of revenue neutrality in reverse-charge cases, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable on account of revenue neutrality, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for non-payment of such service tax was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the underlying service-tax demand was not sustainable, no interest or penalty could survive.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed liability arising from reverse-charge tax on the disputed legal services was annulled, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax payable under reverse charge is fully available to the same assessee as CENVAT credit, the resulting revenue-neutrality renders the tax demand and consequential penal liability unsustainable.

---