BSNL Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-I
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1173 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 6-8-2018
ST\/76085\/2018 – FO\/76506\/2018
Service Tax
Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
\nShri N.D.Saha, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
\nShri A.K.Biswas, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P.K.Choudhary
\nThe appellant BSNL is registered as a provider of “Telephone Service”
\n“Internet Telecommunication Service” “Leased Circuit Service”. They are registered with the Service Tax Authorities. Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2015 was issued for alleged contravention of provision of Sections 68, 70 and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period July, 2012 to September, 2012. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 11,86,639\/- alongwith interest and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n . = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n deep Oil Corporation had already paid the taxes due on its income received from the appellant and had received refund from the tax department. The Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the tax once again could not be recovered from the appellant (deductor assessee) since the tax has already been paid by the recipient of income. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" BSNL Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-IService Tax2018 (8) TMI 1173 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 6-8-2018ST\/76085\/2018 – FO\/76506\/2018Service TaxShri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri N.D.Saha, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K.Biswas, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary The appellant BSNL is registered as … Continue reading “BSNL Versus Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR-I”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13344\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n5. Ld. Advocate made the Bench go through various replies to audit memos for the inspection period 2012-13 and 2013-14 from page 40 to 61 of the appeal paper book. It has been mentioned in those replies that due to late receipt of the Notification No.30\/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and apprehend the contention took some time in complying with the provisions as envisages in the aforesaid notification and accordingly there was a delay in implementing the circular, and circular was finally implemented on 01.10.2012 instead of 01.07.2012. In the meantime the contractors\/service providers were paid 100% service tax on their appeal as per the provisions already made in the tenders and agreements before circulation of the new notification. It is also his submission that for implementation of new notification No.30\/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 some time was needed to make appropriate amendments in the agreement between BSNL and the contractors wh<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n10. Be that as it may, the circular No.275\/201\/95-IT (B) dated 29.01.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares 'no demand visualized under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Section 201(1) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act”.
\n6. Since all the relevant<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n