TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o bills on 01.03.2011 and on 31.03.2011 for which they have not discharged any service tax. ii. Further, the Appellant have not paid service tax on compensation, which was accounted in their Books after the provision of service, and, iii. They have not discharged service tax under Transportation of Goods by Road service provided to M/s. R.P. Transports Salem and accordingly the Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2014 was issued to the Appellant invoking extended period of limitation. 4. The Appellant filed their response to the above show cause notice on 04.02.2015 refuting the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Joint Commissioner confirmed the amount of service tax, interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the following grounds: - i. That the Appellant have not exercised the option of Rule 9 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 in respect of invoices raised prior to 01.04.2011 though completed provision of service. ii. That the Appellant have recorded an amount of Rs. 35,00,000 as additional income in the books for the services rendered prior to 01 April 2011 but have not raised any invoice for the same. The am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls raised for additional amounts. vi. That with respect to demand for the period prior to obtaining registration certificate, the main contractor has already discharged the service tax and tax cannot be levied twice on the same activity and, vii. That with respect to Goods Transport Agency, the demand was mis-directed as the Appellant was not the person liable to pay service tax on the said activity. 7. Per Contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. N. Satyanarayana appearing for the Revenue has re-iterated the findings in the order in appeal and submitted that the appeal is liable to be rejected. 8. We have heard both sides and considered the rival submissions including the evidence available on appeal records and the case laws relied upon. 9. The issues before our consideration are the following: - i. Whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax for invoices raised prior to March 2011 without actual receipt of consideration? ii. Whether the Appellant is liable to service tax for compensation recorded in the books of account when the main contractor had reportedly discharged service tax? iii. Whether the Appellant is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, no demand of service tax shall arise for invoices dated prior to 01 April 2011 due to non-receipt of consideration. ii. Whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax for compensation recorded in the books of account without actual receipt of the same? 12.1 On perusal of the records, it appears that learned Commissioner Appeals in the impugned order has confirmed the demand on the ground that amount of compensation has been received in December 2011. However, on perusal of the order in original and show cause, it appears that Department has presumed that the Appellant has received the compensation whereas the original demand was raised on the ground that the amount of compensation was recorded in the books of accounts. 12.2 This presumption of amount received without factual demonstration of actual receipt of consideration is incorrect. Department ought to have checked whether the amount has been received or not. 12.3 The Appellant have argued that receipt of compensation is recorded in the books of account for the services rendered prior to 01 April 2011 but the same has not been received. 12.4 The Appellant has further informed that they have not raised any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... work assigned to the sub-contractor. All decisions, including those referred to in this order, taking a contrary view stand overruled. 31. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the following terms: "A sub-contractor would be liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the sub-contractor in pursuance of the contract." 13.3 Hence, the Appellant would be liable to pay tax for the period prior to the date of obtaining registration certificate subject to our findings on applicability of extended period stated infra. 13.4 We find that the Appellant have been genuinely under the belief that the amount collected prior to the registration was not liable to service tax as the main contractor had paid the tax on the same. Further, there were conflicting decisions of this Tribunal on this aspect and this was finally settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in 2019 only. Thus, we agree with the Appellant's submission that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present situation and the demand is liable to be set aside on account of limitation. iv. Whether the App....