2021 (7) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the present writ petition. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner holds valid service tax registration certificate for works contract service, construction service, other than residential complex, including commercial/industrial buildings or civil structures. The period of dispute relates to October, 2012 to December, 2013. During the said period, the petitioner rendered works contract service to M/s.Charoen Popkhand Pvt. Ltd., Pune (CPPL) and also charged applicable service tax in their invoices on CPPL, the service recipient, which was also a registered assessee under the very same jurisdiction as that of the petitioner. However, the recipient reimbursed only 50% of the service tax amounting to Rs. 81,59,255/-, directly to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent had been entertained by the Settlement Commission and an adjudication was conducted and final order was passed on 29.09.2017 by the Settlement Commission, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner had paid the entire service tax and there was no due. While so, the interest settled by the Settlement Commission is erroneous and contrary to the facts placed before the Commission. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Department disputed the said contention by stating that there was a short payment by the service provider with reference ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the fact remains that Service Tax was short paid by the Service provider vis-a-vis the value determined by them under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is also an admitted fact that the Applicant had raised bill on the Service recipient charging 100% and paying only 50% of the tax to the Government clearly establishes short payment by the Service provider, attracting interest. The Bench also considers that the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in the case of their Service recipient permitting adjustment of excess payment of Service Tax for the period November, 2012 to December, 2013, towards their Service Tax liability for March, 2014 and April, 2014, does not lend support to the Applicant for calculating interest liability in ....