Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 458 (GUJ)

Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

2015-04-21

M.R.SHAH, S.H.VORA

body2015
Judgment M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Order No. 44/Final Order/ST/JL/2014, dated 23-3-2015 (Annexure "I") made by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission, Bombay insofar as it relates to confirmation and fastening the tax liability of Rs. 31,01,599/- and interest thereon as regards the petitioner company. 1.1 The petitioner has also prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to confirm whether liability of Service Tax on the obligations sub-contracted to the petitioner Company by M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. in respect of service provided by this main contractor to M/s. Asia Motor Works Ltd. was discharged by the main contractor M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and be further pleased to direct the respondents herein to consider payment of Service Tax liability by M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. on the obligations sub-contracted to the petitioner company as due discharge of all liabilities arising upon the petitioner company for the sub-contracted portion. 1.2 The petitioner has also further prayed for appropriate Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order holding and declaring that the amount due and payable by the petitioner company for setting (sic) of show cause notice No. V/ST/ST-AR-II-Rajkot/204/Commr/2013, dated 7-10-2013 was Rs. 81,14,376/-, and upon payment of this amount with interest thereon, the case against the petitioner company stands settled with all immunities allowed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission vide Order No. 44/Final Order/ST/JL/2014, dated 23-3-2015 (Annexure "I"). Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under:- 1.1 The petitioner is holding Service Tax registration under the category of "Clearing and Forwarding Service" falling under Section 65(105)(j), "Tour Operators Service" falling under Section 65(105)(n), "Travel Agent (other than Air and Rail Travel Agent)" falling under Section 65(105)(zzx) and "Transport of Goods by Road" falling under Section 65(105)(p) of Finance Act, 1994. 1.2 It appears that based upon the intelligence forwarded by DGCI that the petitioner is indulging in evasion of Service Tax on the services rendered under the category of "Clearing and Forwarding Services", an inquiry was initiated against them. 1.2 It appears that based upon the intelligence forwarded by DGCI that the petitioner is indulging in evasion of Service Tax on the services rendered under the category of "Clearing and Forwarding Services", an inquiry was initiated against them. That during the course of the investigation/inquiry, it appeared that the petitioner-notice was providing services to different clients for contracted tour and providing bus services on contract basis. It also appeared that they also rendered services for bus ticket booking on commission basis and clearing and forwarding agent services, which were liable to Service Tax under the category of Tour Operator Service, Travel Agent (other than Air/Rail travel agent) service and clearing and forwarding service. 1.3 It was also found that the petitioner-notice was holding Service Tax license under all above categories and they issued service bills charging Service Tax from the clients. It was also found that the petitioner-notice had collected the amount of Service Tax from the service recipients. However, they have not paid the said amount to the department. 1.4 That during the course of the investigation/inquiry, it was also appeared that the petitioner-notice during the period from the financial year 2008-2009 (upto December, 2012) also provided service to M/s. Reliance Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the RPL" for short) and M/s. Mahindra for the movement of the staff working in SEZ. 1.5 The petitioner-notice also submitted copy of the invoices raised upon M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd., Ahmedabad. Upon perusal of the same it appeared that the services was provided to M/s. Asia Motor Works Ltd. through M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd., Ahmedabad for employees of M/s. Asia Motor Works Ltd. and it nowhere stated that the same has been consumed within SEZ. Therefore, it was found that the services is liable to payment of Service Tax which the petitioner failed to pay and it was found that the petitioner-notice was liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "Tour Operator Service". It was also found that the petitioner notice had rendered services to the value of Rs. 8,35,91,013/- to the SEZ unit during the period from financial year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 (up to December, 2012). It appeared during the course of the inquiry that the notices had not paid Service Tax of Rs. 9,19,19,223/-, Education cess of Rs. 1,14,192/-, total amounting to Rs. 8,35,91,013/- to the SEZ unit during the period from financial year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 (up to December, 2012). It appeared during the course of the inquiry that the notices had not paid Service Tax of Rs. 9,19,19,223/-, Education cess of Rs. 1,14,192/-, total amounting to Rs. 1,17,61,800/- and the same was required to be recovered under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with the interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts from the department with intent to evade payment of Service Tax and therefore, contravened various provisions of the Act, as mentioned in the show cause notice and therefore, they also rendered themselves liable to penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. 1.6 Therefore, by show cause notice dated 7-10-2013, the petitioner notice was called upon to show cause as under:- "15. Now, therefore, M/s. Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd., "Eagle House" Eagle Chowk, Rajkot-the Notice are hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rajkot having office at 6th Floor, Central Excise Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot within 30 days from the receipt of this notice as to why:- (I) Service Tax of Rs. 1,14,19,223/-, Education cess of Rs. 2,28,385/- & Secondary & Higher Secondary Education cess of Rs. 1,14,192/- totally amounting to Rs. 1,17,61,800/- should not be recovered under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. An amount of Rs. 81,14,376 paid under different challans should not be appropriated against Service Tax liability; (II) Interest at the applicable rate on the said amount of Service Tax should not be recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; (III) Interest on delayed paid Service Tax of Rs. 1,21,17,344/- should not be recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. An amount of Rs. 1,21,17,344/- should not be recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. An amount of Rs. 1,11,032/- already paid should not be appropriated against such interest liability; (IV) Late fee should not be recovered from them under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for failure to file ST-3 returns in time; (V) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to make the payment of Service Tax payable by them; (VI) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section77 of the Finance Act, 1994; (VII) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for suppressing the value of taxable services provided by them with an intention to evade payment of Service Tax. 16. The Notice is hereby directed to produce at the time of showing cause all evidences upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence. They are further directed to inform in writing, as to whether they desire to be heard in person, before the case is adjudicated. In absence of the same, it would be presumed that they do not desire a personal hearing. 17. If no cause is shown by the Notice or they fail to appear before the adjudicating authority in the stipulated time, the case will be adjudicated on merit and on the basis of the evidences available on records, without any further communication to them. 18. This notice is issued without prejudice to any other action that can be taken against them under the Finance Act, 1994 & the Rules framed under there or under any other law for the time being in force." 1.7 The petitioner company submitted application on 12-5-2014 before the Settlement Commissioner in respect of case arising out of the above referred show cause notice dated 7-10-2013. The petitioner company deposited total sum of Rs. 81,14,376/- towards Service Tax liability and a further amount of Rs. 33,62,429/- towards interest. The petitioner paid for setting such a demand of service tax aggregating Rs. The petitioner company deposited total sum of Rs. 81,14,376/- towards Service Tax liability and a further amount of Rs. 33,62,429/- towards interest. The petitioner paid for setting such a demand of service tax aggregating Rs. 5,45,824/- as regards services provided to M/s. Reliance Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. RPL" for short) in SEZ area, as according to the petitioner, the services provided to any SEZ unit was exempted by virtue of Notification No. 4/4/S.T. has frustrated by Notification No. 9/9/S.T. The petitioner company also paid for settling such a liability of Rs. 31,01,599/- in respect of service provided to M/s. Asia Motor Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. AMW" for short), as the petitioner claimed that the petitioner company was a sub-contractor and the Service Tax on the entire contract value was paid by M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd., who was the main contractor to M/s. AMW Ltd. 1.8 That during the course of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, a report from the respondent No. 3 was called as regards petitioner's submission in the application, more particularly demand of Service Tax with respect to the services provided to M/s. RPL as well as M/s. MLL (According to the petitioner, the services were provided to M/s. AMW.). 1.9 The third respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot submitted a report on the aforesaid. That thereafter, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the Settlement Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 23-3-2015 accepting the petitioner's submission for deducting demand of Rs. 5,45,824/- in respect of service rendered to M/s. RPL, Jamnagar. However, the petitioner's prayer for setting aside deleting demand of Rs. 31,01,500 in respect of bus services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. (in fact, it should be M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd.) has been rejected by rejecting the claim made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a sub-contractor of M/s. MLL and that M/s. MLL was the main contractor of M/s. AMW Ltd. Therefore, by the impugned order, the learned Settlement Commission has confirmed the demand of Rs. 31,01,599/- in respect of services provided to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. 1.10 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. 31,01,599/- in respect of services provided to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. 1.10 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Settlement Commission has materially erred in passing the impugned order and confirming the service tax liability/demand of Service Tax of Rs. 31,01,599/-. 2.1 Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that while confirming the demand notice and the demand of Service Tax liability of Rs. 31,01,599/-, the Settlement Commission has materially erred in not appreciating the fact that as such the petitioner was the sub-contractor to provide bus services to M/s. AMW Ltd. It is submitted that as such as per the agreement between the petitioner and M/s. MLL dated 16-3-2008, the petitioner was under an obligation to provide buses for transportation of employees of M/s. AMW Ltd., as a sub-contractor of M/s. MLL and for providing bus services for transportation of its employees and M/s. MLL has appointed the petitioner company on back to back basis for carrying out the obligation of M/s. MLL in respect of provision of transportation facilities to the employees of M/s. AMW Ltd. It is submitted as per the conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 16-3-2008 between the petitioner company and M/s. MLL, the petitioner was required to raise monthly invoices from M/s. MLL for transportation facilities for the employees of M/s. AMW Ltd. and that M/s. MLL shall make the payment to the petitioner company for such amounts. It is submitted that as agreed, the petitioner company was not to raise any bill to M/s. AMW Ltd., ultimate client receiving the services, but the bills on M/s. AMW Ltd. were to be raised by M/s. MLL as their contractor. It is submitted that in accordance with the said arrangement, the petitioner company used to raise bills on M/s. MLL for the period in question. It is submitted that in turn M/s. MLL raised their bills to M/s. AMW Ltd. as regards the said business transaction, because M/s. MLL has been contractor for providing transportation services for the services of the said client. It is submitted that in turn M/s. MLL raised their bills to M/s. AMW Ltd. as regards the said business transaction, because M/s. MLL has been contractor for providing transportation services for the services of the said client. It is submitted that M/s. MLL in fact paid Service Tax to M/s. AMW Ltd. for providing transportation services for the employees of M/s. AMW Ltd. It is submitted that therefore, by very nature of the above arrangement, the obligation to discharge Service Tax liability for the aforesaid services namely Tour Operator Services lay on M/s. MLL and the said contractor has been actually discharging Service Tax liability on the entire amount billed and received by their client M/s. AMW Ltd. It is submitted that, therefore, the Settlement Commission has materially erred in confirming the demand notice with respect to service liability to the extent of Rs. 31,01,599/- with respect to transportation services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. 2.2 Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such the petitioner submitted application before the Settlement Commission under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). It is submitted that Chapter V of the Act makes the provision for setting the case and the said provisions are made applicable for settlement of demand of Service Tax also. It is submitted that any assessee is allowed to make application to the Settlement Commission before adjudication of show cause notice issued to him-assessee and if the conditions laid down under Section 32E of the Act are satisfied, in regard to such application, then the Settlement Commission has to decide the same in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 32F of the Act. It is submitted that the Settlement Commission has power to conclude any case involving any application before it and order passed by the Settlement Commission on the case and any related matters, is final and conclusive. 2.3 Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that such a procedure is an alternative provided to the assessee, if they do not desire to undergo normal procedure of adjudication which would include filing of the reply to the show cause notice, participating in adjudicating proceedings, leading evidence before the adjudicating authority, etc., which is the normal procedure of adjudication. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner submitted an application on 12-5-2014 before the Settlement Commission in respect of the case arising out of the show cause notice dated 7-10-2013. The petitioner company raised the issue with respect to the demand of Rs. 5,45,824/- with respect to the services provided to M/s. RPL and Rs. 31,01,599/- with respect to the services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. It is submitted that as the M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. paid Service Tax in respect of the transportation facilities provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. 2.4 Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following Circulars issued by the C.B.E. & C. in support of his submission that even as per the said Circulars issued by the C.B.E. & C., sub-contractor is not liable to pay Service Tax despite the fact that the main contractor raises bill in favour of the recipient:- (1) Circular F. No. B.43/1/97-TRU, dated 6-6-1997. (2) Circular No. 43/5/97-TRU, dated 2-7-1997. (3) Circular F. No. B.11/1/98-TRU, dated 7-10-1998. (4) Circular No. 138/7/2011-S.T., dated 6-5-2011. 2.5 Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Evergreen Suppliers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 191. 2.6 Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the various Tribunals in support of his submission that if the Service Tax is paid by the main contractor, sub-contractor is not liable to pay Service Tax:- (1) SEMAC Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. (Tri.-Bang.); (2) OIKOS v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore-III, reported in 2007 (5) S.T.R. 229 (Tri.-Bang.); (3) Messers Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad, rendered in Order No. A/11314/WZB/AHD/2013, dated 7-10-2013; and (4) Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur, reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 408 (Tri.-Mumbai). By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions as well as the above circulars issued by the C.B.E. & C., Mr. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested to admit/allow the present Special Civil Application. 3. Heard Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions as well as the above circulars issued by the C.B.E. & C., Mr. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested to admit/allow the present Special Civil Application. 3. Heard Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. 3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner was served with show cause notice by the appropriate authority and the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why, Service Tax of Rs. 1,14,19,223/-, Education Cess of Rs. 2,28,385/- and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess of Rs. 1,14,192/- totally amounting to Rs. 1,17,61,800/- should not be recovered under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and an amount of Rs. 81,14,376 paid under different challans should not be appropriated against Service Tax liability. The petitioner was also called upon to show cause at to why interest leviable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and appropriate penalty under the provisions of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, should not be imposed and levied. 3.2 On receipt of the show cause notice, immediately the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission by submitting the application under Section 32E of the Act and deposited an amount of Rs. 81,14,376/- towards Service Tax liability and an amount of Rs. 33,62,429/- towards interest. However, disputed the tax liability of Rs. 5,45,824/- with respect to services provided to M/s. RPL and Rs. 31,01,599/- with respect to services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that by the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has set aside the tax liability of Rs. 5,45,824/- with respect to services provided to M/s. RPL provided in the SEZ however, has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 31,01,599/- with respect to services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner was the subcontractor and M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. was contractor to provide transportation services to M/s. AMW Ltd. and as M/s. MLL had paid Service Tax in respect of transportation services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd., the petitioner being sub-contractor, is not liable to pay Service Tax. However, it is required to be noted that there seem to be some misconception on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner is the sub-contractor with respect to transportation services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. Mr. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed before us copy of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (hereinafter referred to as "MML") dated 16-3-2008 for perusal and considering the same, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is sub-contractor for providing transportation services to M/s. AMW Ltd. On considering the entire contract/agreement between the petitioner and M/s. MLL, it is an independent contract between the petitioner and M/s. MML to provide buses to M/s. MLL. In the said agreement, M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited is referred to as "M&M-MI", the petitioner herein-M/s. Eagle Corporation Pvt. Ltd. is referred to as "BA" and Service Level Agreement is referred to as "SLA" for short. As per the said agreement/contract dated 16-3-2008, the petitioner is appointed as a transporter to transport the employees of customer from pick up point to plant and back and managing interplant vehicles movement. Article 5 of the said agreement/contract dated 16-3-2008 reads as under:- "Article 5 : Service fee and conditions: 5.1 In consultation of BA, providing the Services to M & M-ML, M & M-ML, shall pay to BA, a sum/amount, as more specifically mentioned in Annexure-A as transport charges. The said amount shall be inclusive of all taxes except as mentioned in the Annexure-I or SLA and comprehensive vehicle insurance. Any increase in Government RTO Tax will affect the rates agreed in Annexure-I and it will be increased in accordance with the revised RTO Tax rate. The current RTO rate as on date of agreement is Rs. 300/- per Seat. 5.2 BA shall raise its invoice on M & M-ML by 1st of every month for last month and M & M-ML shall make payment thereon within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said invoice by it. M & M-ML, shall make deductions from such bills, only after providing to BA the details of such deductions along with reasoning for such deduction and upon acceptance of such deductions by BA in writing. M & M-ML, shall make deductions from such bills, only after providing to BA the details of such deductions along with reasoning for such deduction and upon acceptance of such deductions by BA in writing. 5.3 Tax would be deducted at source from BA's payments wherever applicable and the respective TDS certificates shall be provided at the end of financial year. 5.4 BA shall ensure that the driver of the vehicles maintains a Log Book starting therein day to day schedule of the vehicle and the said Log Book shall be made available to the authorized personnel of customer and M & M-ML, anytime for inspection and verification." 3.3 That pursuant to the aforesaid contract/agreement between the petitioner and M/s. MM and M/s. MLL, the petitioner has supplied buses for transportation to the clients of M/s. MM/M/s. MLL. That the petitioner has raised separate and individual Invoices for supply of such buses to M/s. MM/M/s. MLL and in turn M/s. MM/M/s. MLL used to make the payment to the petitioner. During the aforesaid process, M/s. AMW Ltd. does not come into picture at all. Under the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner was a sub-contractor to provide transportation services to M/s. AMW Ltd. and that M/s. MM/MLL was the main contractor. 4. At this stage even some of the observations made by the Settlement Commission while passing the impugned order are required to be referred to. In Para 10.5, the Settlement Commission has observed as under:- "10.5 The applicants have also provided tour operator service to another recipient. They had a written agreement with M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. to supply buses directly to one M/s. Asia Motor Works Ltd. (M/s. AMW). The applicants have clarified at the time of hearing on 16-2-2015 that they had raised the bills for the services to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not on M/s. AMW. Hence, the service recipient in this case would be M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not M/s. AMW. The applicants have further claimed that M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. were the main contractors of M/s. AMW and that M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. have since discharged the Service Tax in respect of the buses supplied by the applicant directly to M/s. AMW. Hence, the service recipient in this case would be M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not M/s. AMW. The applicants have further claimed that M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. were the main contractors of M/s. AMW and that M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. have since discharged the Service Tax in respect of the buses supplied by the applicant directly to M/s. AMW. The Bench notes that the applicants had not been able to provide any documentary evidence to correlate the Service Tax paid by M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and the buses provided by the applicant to M/s. AMW. It quite possible that M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. could have been providing some related ancillary services to M/s. AMW for which they could be raising a consolidated bill to M/s. AMW and it would be virtually impossible to link each bill raised by M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. to M/s. AMW with the bill raised by the applicant on M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. Even otherwise, so far as the applicants are concerned, they have provided service to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and not to M/s. AMW since the contract was with M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd., the bills were raised by the applicant on M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. and payments were also received by the applicant firm from M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. There is no provision in Service Tax law which provides that if the main contractor has paid Service Tax, the sub-contractor is exempt from paying tax. This matter has already been clarified by the C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 138/07/2011-S.T., dated 6-5-2011 which has also been cited in the SCN, that a sub-contractor has to pay Service Tax separately for providing any service to the main contractor who in turn can take credit for the service reimbursed. The judgments cited by the applicants are of no help to them since the said judgments were discussed and distinguished in the case of Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2014 (36) S.T.R. 408 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. Thus, the Bench is of the view that the Service Tax amount of Rs. 31,01,599/- relating to the service provided by the applicant to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. is correctly payable by the applicant." 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Settlement Commission while confirming the Service Tax liability of Rs. Thus, the Bench is of the view that the Service Tax amount of Rs. 31,01,599/- relating to the service provided by the applicant to M/s. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. is correctly payable by the applicant." 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Settlement Commission while confirming the Service Tax liability of Rs. 31,01,599/- with respect to the services provided by the petitioner to M/s. MLL. It is rightly held that with respect to the service/transportation service/buses provided by the petitioner to M/s. MLL, the petitioner is liable to pay Service Tax on the same. The Settlement Commission has rightly held and even as observed by us hereinabove, the petitioner cannot be said to be a sub-contractor for providing transportation services to M/s. AMW Ltd. There is an independent contract for providing transportation services/bus services, between the petitioner and M/s. MM/M/s. MLL and even between M/s. MM/M/s. MLL and M/s. AMW Ltd. 6. In view of the above, once it is held that the petitioner cannot be said to be a sub-contractor for providing transportation services to M/s. AMW Ltd., none of the aforesaid decisions and the Circulars issued by the C.B.E. & C. relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to hereinabove, shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Under the circumstances, as such the impugned decision cannot be said to be in any way illegal and/or contrary to the provisions of the statute, which requires interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission can be said to be an alternate to regular and normal adjudication proceedings is concerned, considering the provisions of the Act more particularly Section of Chapter V of the Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the proceedings before the learned Settlement Commission is an alternate to adjudication proceedings. The proceedings before the Settlement Commission can be said to be in the form of conciliation and it gives an opportunity to the assessee to approach the Settlement Commission by submitting application and accepting the liability by disclosing true and correct facts which are necessary for the purpose of determination of amount of tax/demand of tax. The proceedings before the Settlement Commission can be said to be in the form of conciliation and it gives an opportunity to the assessee to approach the Settlement Commission by submitting application and accepting the liability by disclosing true and correct facts which are necessary for the purpose of determination of amount of tax/demand of tax. As per example show cause notice is issued with respect to evasion of "A" amount and the assessee/notice approaches the Settlement Commission accepting the liability to the extent of "B" amount by declaring true and correct facts, on payment of the amount of "B" with interest, in that case, the Settlement Commission is required to adjudicate the dispute with respect to the balance amount, i.e., amount A-B (A minus B) and for which the Settlement Commission is required to follow the procedure as required under Section 32F of the Act, i.e., to call for the report from the Commissioner and/or Commissioner Vigilance and thereafter after giving an opportunity to the assessee, the entire amount of tax liability is required to be determined by the Settlement Commission. However, the Settlement Commission has no power, authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed questions. By the nomenclature of the Commission namely "Settlement Commission" itself is suggestive of the fact that the Settlement Commission is established for settlement of the disputes between the parties and to have settlement without following the normal procedure of adjudication of leading evidence, etc., and assessee approaches the Settlement Commission with a view to get immunity and to save their skin from prosecution provided in the Act for non-payment of the tax which is due and payable by the assessee as per the Department. Under the circumstances, we are afraid to accept the submission of the petitioner that the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to either applicability of the Service Tax and/or entering into the questions like the questions raised in the present petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion that with respect to such questions, appropriate remedy would be to proceed with the show cause notice, as the power of adjudication is vested with the appropriate authority. Therefore, technically speaking, proceedings before the Settlement Commission cannot be in strict-senso said to be an alternate to the adjudication proceedings, as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, technically speaking, proceedings before the Settlement Commission cannot be in strict-senso said to be an alternate to the adjudication proceedings, as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner. We have dealt with the aforesaid aspect as the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made submissions on the same and has vehemently submitted that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission is an alternate proceedings to normal adjudication by the appropriate authority. 8. In any case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner cannot be said to be a sub-contractor with respect to the transportation services provided to M/s. AMW Ltd. and therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that M/s. MM/M/s. MLL paid Service Tax on the transportation services rendered to M/s. AMW Ltd. and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay Service Tax and/or the contention that there shall be double taxation if the tax is recovered from the petitioner, has no substance and the same cannot be accepted. The Service Tax paid by M/s. MM/M/s. MLL with respect to transportation services provided to AMW is with respect to the separate and independent contract entered into between M/s. MLL and M/s. AMW Ltd. and the services rendered by M/s. MM/M/s. MLL to M/s. AMW. The agreement/contract entered into between the petitioner and M/s. MM/M/s. MLL is an independent contract for providing services of transportation and therefore, the petitioner is not a sub-contractor and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay Service Tax on the transportation services/bus services provided by the petitioner to the M/s. MM/M/s. MLL. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the present petition. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. In Favour of Department.