TallyPrime Auditor License (Renewal) (Multi User)   TallyPrime
Gold
Renewal

  TallyPrime Silver Renewal (Single User)   TallyPrime Silver New Licence (Single User)   TallyPrime Gold New Licence (Multi User)   Purchase
Tally on
Cloud
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
ITAT-Constitution of Benches »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Income Tax Penalty u/s 271E cannot be levied in the absence of Regular Assessment: ITAT
 ITAT deletes Addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act Firm not Taxable for Capital introduced by Partner
 Payment for Facebook Ads and Other Digital Advertising Companies not subject to TDS as per DTAA: ITAT
 No Service Tax Leviable on Goods component of Composite Works Contract as VAT has been paid: CESTAT
 ITAT deletes Addition on Account of Investment made from Undisclosed Sources as all Transactions were made through Banking Channels
 Relief to Honda: ITAT directs AO to delete Addition on account of Capitalisation of Royalty Expenses by Holding it to be Revenue in Nature
 Minimising tax liabilities by lawful means not illegal, says ITAT
 Interest paid on Late Payment of Service Tax is a Deductible Business Expenditure: ITAT
 ITAT upholds Addition on Account of Unaccounted Cash as no mention of Agricultural Land on Translated Document
 Delay in filing of Income Tax Return due to Financial Difficulties: ITAT quashes Penalty
 ITAT deletes penalty on Undisclosed Income u/s 271AAA
 M/s Singh Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 1106 Indra Prakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), New Delhi
 Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) not sustainable if reason not specified: ITAT
 Notice issued u/s 143(2) to be served upon the assessee within six months: ITAT

No Service Tax Leviable on Goods component of Composite Works Contract as VAT has been paid: CESTAT
November, 29th 2021

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no Service Tax is leviable on goods component of composite works contract as VAT has been paid.

The appellant, M/s Touchstone Infrastructure and Solutions Private Limited provides finishing services on a works contract basis to various parties. This work includes providing false ceilings, flooring, glazing, fixing up partitions, electrical work, etc. The appellant charges a single amount for the entire contract without invoicing separately for the goods and the services. It is undisputed that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on these services under the head of works contract service and the appellant is also liable to pay VAT on the goods component of these contracts. The appellant paid VAT on the goods component reckoning 70% of the total contract of the value of the goods as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Rules and paid service tax on 30% of the total contract value. The case of the Revenue is that since the appellant could not ascertain the actual value of goods transferred, it should have paid service tax under the composition scheme.

The appellant paid VAT as per Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, read with Rule 8 (5) (d) of Tamil Nadu VAT Rules which prescribe that in case of works contracts 30% of the total amount charged would be treated as the service component and VAT shall be paid on the remaining 70%. The appellant discharged VAT accordingly and paid service tax on 30% of the total amount reckoning it as the service component. The case of the Revenue is that service tax on works contract is chargeable on the consideration received for the service portion of works contract if such consideration is available in the contract/invoice separately, otherwise service tax must be paid under the “Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007” upto 30.06.2012.



The coram headed by President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V.Subba Rao held that where the value has already been split as per the state law and VAT has been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax can be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The demand for the period post 01.07.2012 also needs to be set aside on this ground. Since the demand of service tax does not sustain, the demand of interest under Section 75 and imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77, and 78 do not also survive.


 

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2022 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting