Kaveri Ultra Polmers Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax ...
- CitationAppeal No.177-2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A recipient of a goods transport agency service cannot be made liable to pay service tax merely because the provider collected an amount representing tax; it is not the recipient's obligation to ascertain whether the provider deposited that tax with the Government. A recipient of a goods transport agency service who pays service tax as a receiver of service on that service may discharge that liability by availing CENVAT credit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.177-2014 dated 28/02/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-II( Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Kaveri Ultra Polmers Pvt Ltd No.113-b, Bommasandra Industrial Area BANGALORE - 560099 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore-service Tax 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri M A NARAYANA, Advocate FLAT A GR FLOOR, SEVEN HILLS EXCELLENCY, #33,2ND CROSS, SBM COLONY, BRINDAVAN NAGAR,MATHIKERE BANGALORE - 560054 KAR For the Appellant
Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 09/01/2015
Date of Decision: 09/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20070 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
The questions that arise for consideration are whether the appellant is liable to pay the service tax on the GTA service as a recipient of service when the service provider has collected certain amount as representing service tax and consequently whether the appellant can pay service tax as a receiver of service on GTA service using CENVAT credit.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of since the issues involved are within a narrow compass. Accordingly the requirement of predeposit is waived and appeal is taken up for final decision.
3. As regards the first issue, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in the case of Mandev Tubes Vs. CCE, Vapi [2009(16) STR 724 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&C, Vadodara-II [2009(13) STR 421 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. In both these cases, the Tribunal considered similar situation wherein the service provider had charged the service tax on the receiver. I agree with the submission that it is not the job of the appellant to find out whether service provider had paid the tax to the Government or not. As regards the second issue of availment of CENVAT credit for payment of tax also, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2011(24) STR 670 (Tri. Del.)] and I find that the decision is applicable to the present case also. In view of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and in view of the fact that these decisions covered the issues before me, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. Stay petition also get disposed of.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja.
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free