2026-VIL-1747-CESTAT-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Liability of sub-contractor when main contractor has paid service tax – Invocation of extended period of limitation - Appellant, a sub-contractor providing works contract services for painting of residential and public buildings, did not pay service tax, and the demand for the extended period was confirmed along with interest and penalties - Appellant contended that it entertained a bona fide belief that it was not liable to pay tax when the main contractor had paid the tax, as several Tribunal decisions held so, and that such a view would otherwise amount to double taxation - Whether the demand for the extended period can be upheld - HELD - It is agreed by both sides that the issue on merit is no more res integra in view of the Larger Bench decision, which held that a sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even when the main contractor has paid the tax. There were several judgments prior to the Larger Bench decision which had held that a sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax if the main contractor had already paid the tax. It is an admitted position that there was confusion regarding the liability to service tax of a sub-contractor, and therefore the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked - In identical cases involving the same issue, the Tribunal has set aside the demand for the extended period. Consequently, only the demand for the normal period of limitation can be sustained - The demand for the normal period is upheld along with the penalty under Section 72, and the demand for the extended period is set aside along with the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order is modified and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page