2022 (2) TMI 1077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asamy, J. , ) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.No.727 of 2018. 2. The above said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant herein, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.64/2017-ST dated 29.09.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 28.06.2021, dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved over the said order, the appellant herein filed the present Writ Appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant undertook 'Works Contract Service' during the per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovider and the service Recipient. However, this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge and also by the Settlement Commission and wrongly directed the appellant to pay the interest from the due date to till 05.07.2014. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is not liable to pay the interest and to that extent, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the appellant is liable to pay 100% of service tax. In fact, the appellant raised invoices for 100%, however, remitted tax only for 50%. He fairly admitted that the service Recipient has paid 50% of tax amount. Howe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant, and the balance amount of 50% was directly paid to the Service Tax Department by the service Recipient under the premise that the reverse charge mechanism was applicable. 10. In the present case, as admitted by both the parties, the reverse charge mechanism is not applicable to the appellant company. The reverse charge mechanism is applicable only to the individuals, Hindu Undivided Family, etc., where, the Department would normally adjust the amount paid by the service Recipient and re-credit the same to the service provider's account. Though it is strongly contended that the 50% amount paid by the service recipient cannot be re-credited to the appellant, the fact remains that the Department has re-credited the said amount fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u Undivided Family, etc., it does not mean that there was complete bar for the service recipient to remit the service tax liability of the service provider in their (appellant's) account, in the case of an assessee, being a company, when the fact remains that, ultimate service tax has to be collected from the service recipient by the service provider and remit back the same to the Department. 10.3 Therefore, we hold that the procedure adopted by the service recipient cannot be found fault with as long as there is no specific bar under the Act to make tax remittance directly to the account of the service provider. Further, service recipient admitted that, they misunderstood that reverse charge mechanism is applicable to the appellant&#3....