Page 146 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

64 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
He also submitted a copy of Annual Report for the period 2013-14 to point out
that the appellant is not a separate entity.
4. Per Contra, A. Roy, Ld. AR, submits that there is a valid contract en-
tered into by the appellant with the Service Tax recipient, both are two different
entities having two different status as far as income tax is concerned, as they
have obtained different PAN Numbers which is mandatory for obtaining Service
Tax registration. The Ld. DR also drew our attention to various clauses in the
contract to buttress that both are different entities and that there is no service to
self as contended by the assessee/appellant. He also pointed out to Page 55
wherein, the gross price is shown to include Service Tax and education cess and
there is also Arbitration clause in case of any disputes arising on account of the
contract.
5. We have considered the rival contentions, have gone through the
documents placed on records and have also gone through various decisions re-
lied upon by the Ld. Senior Advocate. From the perusal of the documents and
the explanations filed by the appellant, we note that but for pleading that there
was no service recipient rather service is for self, no documentary evidence is
furnished for the satisfaction of either the Ld. Commissioner/Adjudicating Au-
thority or before us. We also find that the Adjudicating Authority has given a
finding on the contentions of the appellant; that the services rendered by the ap-
pellant was for consideration and that in case of orders for executing service, the
appellant had sub-contracted after making payment for which, the appellant had
also taken credit for the Service Tax amount charged. There is also a finding by
Ld. Commissioner that the appellant did indeed allot vendor code and ledger to
Tata Steel Ltd. by treating the other as its customers on which there is no refu-
tal/rebuttal by the appellant and it is also a part of the record that the services
rendered were the results of open bidding/tender where even the appellant
amongst others, participated. On being successful, purchase order was placed
and the contract came up executed.
6. On considering above discussions by the Ld. Adjudicating Authori-
ty, suffice it to say that the appellant has failed to prove that it is the case of ‘Self
Service’ but the Revenue has clearly established that there exists service, there is
a service provider, there is also a service recipient; and for which the payment
has been made. In the backdrop of the above, therefore, we are of the humble
opinion that the decisions relied on by the Ld. Senior Advocate are distinguisha-
ble. But however, it is a matter of record that the Revenue has come to know of
the above facts only during the course of checking of records and not from an
independent source and therefore, the same cannot be said to have been sup-
pressed with an intention to evade tax and consequently, the demand cannot be
raised beyond the normal period. We also find that there is no specific allegation
of suppression, fraud, etc., to justify invoking larger period of limitation. In the
light of the above, therefore the demand in so far as the normal period of limita-
tion alone can be sustained, which we hereby do.
7. In the result, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Adjudicat-
ing Authority for working out for liability, if any, for the normal period alone.
Matter is partly allowed and partly remanded on the above terms.
(Pronounced on 29-8-2019)

_______
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  146