The first question that we have to consider is whether an agent of a principal who is also a dealer under the Act is entitled to the same rights as his principal has under the Act. Under the general law the agent merely represents his principal. Therefore, while functioning within the scope of the agency he can exercise all the rights which his principal could have exercised. In fact, in the case of an ordinary agency, the agent merely acts for his principal. This provision must hold good even under the Madras General Sales Tax Act unless otherwise provided therein.
we find that the appellant’s claim that they have produced some records and the documents, indicating that the income mentioned in the balance sheet may not be totally out of the income as a recovery agent is borne out from the Chartered Accountant’s certificate and adjudicating authority has recorded the same in the submissions made by assessee. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority has recorded that the appellant has produced a Chartered Accountant’s certificate. Suffice to say that the adjudicating authority should have given a finding on this issue, we are of the view that the entire issue needs to be re-considered by lower authority. We also find that the issue involved in this case also needs to be appreciated from the factual matrix, as regards the receipts indicated in the balance sheet of the appellant and the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant to that extent. It our opinion, this exercise is better left to the adjudicating authority to appreciate all the evidences available and that may be produced by the appellant.
It is seen from the records that the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the question of limitation. It is undisputed that the appellant had received the order in original on 28.8.2010 and the appellant had a right to file an appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order and he also gets further period of three months for seeking condonation of delay from the first appellate authority.
In view of the decision taken by this Tribunal in the case of Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd vide Order Nos. A/745-746/WZB/AHD/2011, dated 22-3-2011 [2011 (23) S.T.R. 475 (Tri. – Ahmd.)], that port services rendered even without authorization of port, Service Tax credit will be available, respondents are eligible for the Service “tax credit and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be upheld.
Since the appellant is not providing output services as categorized in Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, debiting the said amount in the Cenvat account needs to be rectified by directing the appellant to debit or pay the entire amount invoked in both the appeals as service tax paid for receipt GTA services through PLA or by TR-6 challan.
In this case, the Service Tax demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service tax payable has not been debited in the CENVAT Credit account and it has not been reflected in the ST 3 return. In view of the fact that even in the cases of clandestine removal in Central Excise matters, while confirming the demand, the benefit of CENVAT Credit, subject to verification of records that proper documents are available and raw input/capital goods have been received, the benefit of CENVAT Credit is allowed.
Tribunal had considered the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 2005 ((190) ELT 301 before coming to the conclusion that when fabrication does not amount to manufacture, service tax is not leviable. Further, he also submits that the claim for exemption is on the ground that the contract was for construction of roads had been denied on the ground that contract was not produced.
It was contended by the appellants that they were not aware that they had to pay service tax. Though it was a fact that they have taken service tax registration, they never disclosed the nature of services rendered nor they furnished ST-3 returns, which was mandatory for a person providing taxable services. The question naturally arises that if they were not aware that they had to pay service tax, why should they take a service tax registration. We are of the opinion that non-furnishing of information or non-filing of returns resulted in non-payment of service tax and this action on the part of appellants tantamount to deliberate non-compliance with the provisions. In other words, this is only implying suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the extended period, under Section 73(1) is rightly invoked by the Revenue.
Plea of the assessee that while making the payment wrong service tax code relating to erection, installation and commissioning, indicated merits to be considered and having regards to facts of the case and Board’s Circular No. 58/7/2003-ST, dated 20.05.03 issued from F.No.l59/2/2003-CX-4 and therefore adjustment of payment in the correct account code are allowed. If so, the Board’s circular dated 20.05.03 (referred supra) as a payment should be admissible. .
After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides we find that it is an admitted fact by both the sides that the construction of road does not require payment of service tax. The Revenue’s only appeal is that construction of driveway cannot be equated with the construction of road in as much as such driveway was not for public utility purpose but the same was in connection with the petrol pump owned by the owner.
