Case Law Details
Scope E Knowledge Center Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT find that there is no dispute insofar as the facts are concerned. The only short questions that arise for our consideration are: (1) whether translation services constitute “support services of business or commerce” as defined under Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 and (2) whether the Revenue was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation?
We find that the period of dispute is from 2006-07 to 2010-11 and the tax demand was raised under reverse charge mechanism. Hence, when the tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism, the appellant would be entitled to avail credit of the same, which invariably leads to a revenue neutral situation. Thus, there is no scope to allege fraud, suppression, etc., to invoke the extended period of limitation for non-payment of tax.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in providing knowledge process outsourcing. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2011 and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 03.04.2013 reveals that there was an investigation by the Survey, Intelligence and Research (SIR) Branch of the Service Tax Commissionerate based on an intelligence input that the appellant was receiving various taxable services from overseas companies but had not remitted Service Tax. It appears that there were several queries and replies, which finally resulted in issuing the Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2011.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
