Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"5.01 The amount of Rs 4,13,42,028/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirteen Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Twenty Eight only) 9service Tax inclusive of ED. & S H Ed Cess)

2 ST/87268/2015 paid by the noticee during investigation, is hereby appropriated against the demand of Service Tax made under reverse charge mechanism on the services received from the foreign service providers.

5.02 The amount of Rs 1,40,37,728/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Eight Only) paid by the noticee as interest on the service Tax paid by them during investigation is hereby appropriated.

was issued to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why:-

i. The benefit of Notification No 17/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 as amended by Notification No 14/2012-

ST dated 17.03.2012 should not be denied. ii. The Service Tax amounting to Rs 5,83,46,022/- for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13 on the services received from foreign service providers under reverse charge mechanism should not be charged and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994.

In case of Cummins Technologies [2017 (7) GSTL 69 (T- Del)], tribunal held as follows:

"6. Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 is the charging Section, which provides that in respect of taxable services mentioned therein, service tax shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Even for the import of service, the service tax has to be levied under Section 66 ibid. Since a deeming fiction was created in Rule 66A ibid, providing for payment of service tax by the recipient of service, such levy is in consonance with the charging provisions contained in Section 66 ibid. Thus, the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act should also be applicable in respect of the service tax paid under Section 16 ST/87268/2015 66A ibid. In the present case, since the appellant is liable to pay service tax as a recipient of the taxable service, the provision of Section 66 ibid should also be applicable to it. In other words, upon fixing the responsibility for payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism, no distinction can be placed between the service receiver and service provider for the purpose of Section 66 ibid. Therefore, we are of the view that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 17/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 should also be available to the respondent. We find that the Tribunal in the case of United News of India (supra) while interpreting the provisions of Section 66A ibid, has held that the benefit of the exemption should also be available to the recipient of service. The relevant paragraph in the said order is extracted herein below :
"d) thus they have failed to disclose the facts to the Department as regards the foreign currency expenditures incurred by them which are liable to Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. In light of the fact that they were receiving services from foreign entities and were liable to pay Service Tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, it appears that the assessee has deliberately suppressed material facts from the department which has facilitated the evasion of Service Tax payable on the said services received by them from Foreign Service providers. These facts could not have been notice if a case had not been booked by the department and it was revealed only through investigations that the expenditure in foreign currency was not on account of expenditure incurred by their foreign offices but towards services received by them which were chargeable to Service Tax under Section 66A