TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the record of entire appeal has been perused. Learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra. It stands already decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commr. of S.T., New Delhi Vs. Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri.-LB). The appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 3. We observe that the appellant was engaged in providing Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services and was registered with the service tax department for the same. Based on the intelligence received by the department, the documents of the appellants were audited and it was observed that the appellant has not deposited service tax on the amount as has been received from their client i.e. M/s. SMPL Infra Ltd. during the period from April 2009 to September 2012. Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No. 144/2014 dated 10.10.2014, service tax amounting to Rs.2,94,14,959/- for the period April 2009 to March 2014 was proposed to be recovered along with the interest and proportionate penalties. The proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 102/2016-17 dated 21.02.2017. Being aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Service Tax has already been paid by the principal, then the same cannot be demanded again." 19. M/s Dhaneshra Engineering Works followed the aforesaid decision in BCC Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 20. In M/s Edac Engg. Ltd., the Division Bench, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Urvi Construction, observed: "6.2 We are therefore of the considered opinion that these case laws are distinguishable from the decision taken by this very Bench in the case of the present appellants Edac Engineering Ltd. in Final order dated 19.12.2016. We also find that the very same Board's Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T., dated 23.08.2007, relied upon by the Ld. AR has been taken note of by the Tribunal in Urvi Construction (supra). This being so, we have no hesitation in ruling that when service tax has been paid by the main contractor, charging the sub-contractor again will amount to taxing the same service twice. In the circumstances, the issue at hand also requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify whether the service rendered by the appellant has suffered tax in the hands of the principal contracts. If that aspect is able to be proved by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. M/s J.K. Transport, reported in 2017 (9) TMI 993 - CESTAT New Delhi. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below : "5. We find that the CBEC vide Circular dated 23.08.2007 has clarified that the services provided by the sub-contractor is a taxable service, even if the same is used for completion of the work by the main service provider. Thus, for providing the taxable service, the sub-contractor is liable for payment of service tax on provision of such service.........." 25. Similar views were taken by the Tribunal in (i) Max Logistics Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, reported in 2017 (47) STR 41 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) Hargovind Electric Decorators vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, reported in 2016 (43) STR 619 (Tri.-Del.); and (iii) Sew Construction Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, reported in 2011 (22) STR 666 (Tri.-Del.). 26. At this stage, it would also be useful to refer to a larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Vijay Sharma & Company vs CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 2010 (20) STR 309 (Tri.-LB). The issue that arose before the larger Bench was as to whether service provided by a sub-broker are covered under the ambit of Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harges the Service Tax liability because the credit of the earlier tax paid is available at a subsequent stage, but it is because of the decision of the Tribunal in Urvi Construction, that the Commissioner held that double taxation would result if a subcontractor is also required to discharge Service Tax liability when the main contractor has discharged the entire liability. 28. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr., reported in 2016-TIOL-155-SC-VAT. In this case, the contracts which were secured by the Appellant therein were works contract and a part thereof was assigned to the sub-contractor who had submitted returns and paid taxes for the execution of the works contract. During the course of the assessment, the Appellant submitted that the sub-contractors had already been taxed and, therefore, the Appellant cannot be taxed again under Section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The submission, therefore, was that the value of the work entrusted to the sub-contractors could not be taken into account while computing the total turnover ....