Case Law Details
Vice Chairman Settlement Commission Vs Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court)
Whatever the ratio, the tax in its entirety has reached the hands of the ex-chequer. Merely for the reason that there was no strict adherence to the ratio as envisaged during the relevant point of time for payment of tax insofar as the assessee and the service provider, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay the double tax. What is significant to note is that the discharge of entire tax amount is not disputed. Thus, the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) would not lead to double taxation. We find no grounds to interfere with this finding of the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the CBEC Circular No.341/18/2004-TRU [Pt.], dated 17.12.2004 also supports the case of the assessee in this regard.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 18.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.9636/2020, whereby the petition filed by the respondents – assessees has been allowed in part quashing the impugned part of the orders, matter was remitted to the Settlement Commission for consideration afresh in accordance with law and after notice to the stakeholders.
2. The respondent- M/s. Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of carrying out design, supply and installation of interior works mainly for commercial establishments. The respondent is registered under the Service Tax Provisions vide ST Registration No.AAACZ3238JST001. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence [DGGSTI], the respondent had submitted an application dated 03.06.2019 for settlement of the proceedings. The Settlement Commission after hearing the parties, ordered for joint sitting of both the parties. Accordingly, the joint sitting was held on various dates. Both the parties submitted the joint sitting report before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission passed the final order dated 24.03.2020 confirming the service tax amount of Rs.40,75,512/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively on the Director of the respondent company. The request made by the respondent for modification of the final order dated 24.03.2020 came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the Settlement Commission the respondent had approached the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.08.2021, allowed the Writ Petition in part quashing the impugned part of the orders and remitting the matter to the Settlement Commission for consideration afresh. Hence, this Writ Appeal by the Revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
