Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

3 months ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š——š—¼š˜‚š—Æš—¹š—² š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š——š—²š—ŗš—®š—»š—± š—®š—»š—± š—¦š—˜š—­ š—˜š˜…š—²š—ŗš—½š˜š—¶š—¼š—» šŸ“¢ The Tribunal held: "Service tax cannot be demanded twice on the same service, even if the liable party did not pay it, but another party did. Services provided to SEZ are exempt from service tax."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Saraswati Engineering š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the appellant can avail a 75% abatement and if the service falls under Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency Service?

š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant provided Erection, Installation, and Commissioning Services but classified it as Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency Services, paying 25% of the service tax while the recipient paid 75%. The department alleged the appellant owed the remaining 75% and also demanded tax on services provided to Reliance Industries Limited (SEZ).

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that the appellant's services were classified as Erection, Installation, and Commissioning, not Manpower Supply. Since the full service tax was paid (25% by the appellant, 75% by the recipient), double taxation is not permissible. Services to SEZ, including Reliance Industries, are tax-exempt. The appeal was allowed.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Saraswati Engineering vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot š—¦š—˜š—„š—©š—œš—–š—˜ š—§š—”š—« š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼.12079 of 2016 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 20 December 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling confirms that service tax cannot be levied twice, and services provided to SEZ units are exempt from service tax.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own