TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been held:- "ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.78,16,912 [Seventy Eight Laklis Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Twelve only] (including both cess) only upon the party Le. Shri Jai Prakash Singh, Post Manikalan Tehsil Shahganj Vill Sandahan, Jaunpur-222113 under the provisions of Section 73 (2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. (ii) I order for charging Interest at the appropriate rates under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 on the amount of Service Tax, as confirmed at (i) above. (iii) I also impose a penalty of Rs.78,16,912 [Seventy Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Twelve only] upon the party, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act. 2017. However, in terms clause (11) of second proviso of Section 78, the said penalty is liable to be reduced to 25% of the penalty as mentioned above, provided that the Service Tax as determined in (i) above is also paid along with interest as mentioned in (ii) and reduced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Rs. Twelve only) should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. ii. The due interest on the amount of service tax mentioned at (i) should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. iii. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay service tax & suppressing the facts and value of taxable services with intent to evade payment of service tax. iv. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. v. Penalty under relevant provisions should not be imposed for not depositing of the service tax recovered from parties and crediting to Govt. Exchequer." 2.4 This show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original referred in para 1 above. 2.5 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order. 2.6 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Amit Tiwari Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Smt Chitra Srivastava Authorized Representative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey have received the payment from outside from India ie. Nepal and therefore, there is no service tax liability on their part. Further appellant have provided transportation service inside India also and received commission from the truck owners. The service tax liability Rs 6,24.755/ due for the commission charges has already been paid by appellant during the impugned period. However the appellant has claimed that no such service tax liability is required to be paid on the commission received by their agents. Therefore the amount of Rs 6,24,756/-may be refunded to them and the proceeding initiated against appellant may be dropped. It is further stated that the appellant in relation to the transportation made inside India, the appellant only charges the commission from the truck owner and the freight has been received by the truck owner from the person who takes the delivery and the appellant nowhere is involved in any direct transportation inside of India and is only a commission agent and the appellant on 06.04.2016 discharged the service tax payment of Rs.6,24,756/ on the bonafide belief that the commission received by the agent is a liability under the Service Tax, but accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the place of provision of a service of transportation of goods is the place of destination of goods, except in the case of services provided by a GTA in respect of transportation of goods by road, in which case the place of provision is the location of the person liable to pay tax, as determined in terms of Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further, the Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 provides that where a service of transportation of goods is provided by a 'goods transportation agency', and due to reverse charge the person liable to pay tax is the person who pays, or is liable to pay freight (either himself or through his agent) for the transportation of goods by road in a goods carriage. But, as per proviso to Rule 2(1)(d) ibid, if the person liable to pay freight is located in non-taxable territory. then the person liable to pay service tax shall be the service provider. In simple words, in all the cases of transportation of goods by road, by GTA, where the location of the person liable to pay freight is Outside India or in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, the person liable to pay service tax is CITA itself. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Service Tax was detected by the Department on the basis of third party information provided by the Income Tax Department for FY 2015-16 10 2017 18 (June 17) and was not declared try the appellant on their own, though they were registered with the department and suppressed the taxable value. The facts manifest appellant's Intention to evade payment of Service Tax as, if the department had not detected short payment of tax, the evasion would have gone on unchecked. Contravention of statutory provisions is evident and manifest from records and therefore, Invocation of extended period is justified. 5.8 On examining the facts of the instant case in terms of Section 75 of the Act 1 find that where any amount is payable as tax but not paid/paid belatedly, it results in financial loss to the exchequer and corresponding financial gain to the assessee. Therefore, if the Service Tax has been paid beyond the due date, interest is chargeable in terms of statutory provisions mentioned above. Therefore, I find that in this case, the demand/ recovery of interest on Service Tax not paid by the appellant, has correctly been ordered by the Adjudicating Authority 5.9 As regards impositi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rules made thereunder; (V) any body corporate established, by or under any law; or (VI) any partnership firm whether registered or not under any law including association of persons; any person who pays or is liable to pay freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of such goods by road in a goods carriage: Provided that when such person is located in a non-taxable territory, the provider of such service shall be liable to pay service tax. 4.4 In the present case, we observe that appellant is engaged in providing Goods Transport Agent services. They issue consignment notes for transportation of goods from India to Nepal for which payments are received by him from overseas clients in India, who undisputedly are corporate entities. Thus, the liability to pay service tax is on the consignee. By referring to provisio to the said rule Commissioner (Appeal) has concluded that the liability to pay service tax falls on the appellant. 4.5 While coming to the said conclusions impugned order also rejected the arguments advanced by the appellant vis a vis Notification No 30/2012-ST which provides for payment of service tax on reverse charge basis by the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be and the location of the said person will be the place of provision of service. 4.7 The Pace of Provision of Service Tax Rules, 2012 are for the purpose of determining taxability of the services in dispute. As per the "Taxation of Service And Education Guide" issued by Tax Research Unit, Central Board of Excise & Customs- "5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 What is the relevance of the 'Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012'? The 'Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012' specify the manner to determine the taxing jurisdiction for a service. Hitherto, the task of identifying the taxing jurisdiction was largely limited in the context of import or export of services. For this purpose rules were formulated which handled the subject of place of provision of services somewhat indirectly, confining to define the circumstances in which a provision of service would constitute import or export. The new rules will, on the other hand, determine the place where a service shall be deemed to be provided, in terms of section 66C of the Finance Act, 2012, read with section 94 (hhh) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Under Section 66B, a service is taxable only when, inter alia, it is "....