AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Solution (P) Ltd.[ the Appellant] to assail the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun [the Commissioner], confirming the demand of service tax with interest and penalty. It also seeks to appropriate an amount of Rs. 12,02,304/- deposited by the appellant and drops the demand of Rs. 4,47,71,585/-. The order also imposes penalty of Rs. one lakh each upon Madan Singh Rawat and Trilok Singh Rawat, Directors of the appellant under section 78A of the Finance Act 1994 [the Finance Act]. 2. Service Tax Appeal No. 50612 of 2017 has been filed by Madan Singh Rawat to assail the imposition of penalty of Rs. one lakh. 3. Service Tax Appeal No. 51454 of 2017 has been filed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the party is liable to pay the service tax leviable on the taxable service rendered by them. 57. I further find that w.e.f. 01.07.2012, under Section 68(2) of the Act certain services were notified where the service tax was required to be paid party or wholly by the recipient of the service. Vide Notification 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, issued under Section 68(2) of the Act, the taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by way of supply of manpower for any purpose by any individual, Hindu Undivided Family or partnership firm were notified. It is noteworthy that the services of manpower supply per se were not notified but only in cases where the provider of this service was an individual, Hindu Undivided Family or partne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as no service tax was payable by them, there was no case for levy of any personal penalty under Section 78A of the Act. I find that, in the light of the findings given by me in the preceding paras, the party was liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 72,44,949/-. I have also observed that it was in the knowledge of the party that the entire tax was to be discharged by them, however, inspite of this knowledge the tax was not paid in terms of this provision of law. I also find that both, Shri Madan Singh Rawat - in his reply and Shri Trilok Singh Rawat- in his statement, have stated that the service tax liability was theirs‟ but the tax was only paid to the extent of 25% as the balance 75% was paid by their clients. I find that Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, the appellant had collected proof of payment of tax amounting to Rs. 45,73,816/- and the balance amount of Rs. 26,52,888/- with interest amounting to Rs. 12,02,304/- had been paid by the appellant by challan dated 06.10.2016. 7. Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and contended that it does not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. The issue that requires consideration in this appeal is as to whether payment of 75% tax by the recipient of service, when the service provider (the appellant) was required to deposit 100% tax but paid only 25% tax could be treated as discharge of service tax liability by the appellant. 9. This issue was ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to pay the tax again. (c) xxxxxxxxxxxx" 10. The aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court in Zyeta Interiors emphasises that where the government received the entire amount of tax an assessee cannot be called upon to make payment even if it had deposited some portion of the tax dues and the remaining portion was deposited by the service provider. The Karnataka High Court also observed that once the tax liability has been discharged, regardless of the person who has discharged, an assessee cannot be asked to pay the tax again. 11. The Tribunal in Reliance Securities Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 265 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2013 ....