TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whereby, he has upheld the order passed by the Original Authority in so far as tax demand was concerned, though the penalty under Section 78 was reduced to Rs. 9,30,871/- as against the penalty of Rs. 18,61,742/- imposed by the Original Authority. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in providing 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services' and 'Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services. The Department noticed that they were incurring certain expenditure towards receipt of security services from various service providers, who were other than body corporates and therefore in terms of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the appellants were liable to pay service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and reimbursed and that the ST-3 returns of the service providers show that they had paid service tax on the entire consideration though this amount is shown as payable under RCM. The invoices issued by the service provider show that the service tax was collected by providers. In this regard, he is also relying on various case laws cited below in support of that the appellant is not required to pay the tax again: i) Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd., Vs Commissioner of CGST &CX, Rourkela Commissionerate [2020 99) TMI 477 - Cestat Kolkata] ii) Utility Labour Suppliers Vs Commissioner of CE, Ahemadabad-II [2024 (11) TMI 1227 - Cestat Ahmedabad] iii) Saraswati Engineering Vs CCE & ST, Rajkot [2023 (12) TMI 1005 - Cestat Ahme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and perused the records. 6. The short question for determination is whether in this case, the appellant has not discharged the service tax liability cast on him under RCM in relation to certain taxable services received by them. The main ground taken by the appellant is that the service providers themselves have paid the entire 100% service tax liability on the taxable value and merely because they were required to pay 75% of the tax payable under RCM, there cannot be a demand on them when the entire tax liability stands settled. We have perused the case laws cited by the appellant in the case of Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd., supra, wherein, same issue was examined. The Tribunal, interalia, held that there is no need to confirm the demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C, Vadodara 2009 (13) S.T.R. 421 (Tribunal) supra has held that "once tax already paid on the services, it was not open to the Department to confirm the same against the appellant, in respect of the same services". 7. Therefore, we find that when the entire service tax liability has been discharged by the service provider in respect of the amount which is required to be discharged by him in terms of the notification regulating the payments on forward charge basis as well as under RCM by the respondent, it has to be held that any demand again from the service recipient would amount to double taxation. It is a fact that as per the provisions both service provider and recipient are required to discharge service tax liability in the case of....