9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1440 - AT - Service TaxTime Limitation - Construction of various civil structure at the site of sub-station - case of appellant is that the services were being provided by them to Uttar Pradesh state enterprises and there can be no mala fide on their part to suppress the said fact from the Revenue inasmuch as they were entitled to recover the service tax amount from the Uttar Pradesh State Enterprises - exemption under N/N. 45/2010-CE and Mega Exemption N/N. 25/2012. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The services were being provided to Uttar Pradesh State Corporation and there can be a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that inasmuch as the services are being provided to a Government organization they cannot be held to be taxable. Otherwise also the onus to establish mala fide on the part of the assessee is upon the Revenue and the same is required to be discharged by production of evidences - There has been no evidences indicating any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of service tax - the major part of the demand would be hit by bar of limitation. Merits of the case - HELD THAT - A small portion would still lie within the normal period - Works Contract are in respect of various jobs to be done by the assessee at the sub-stations. The appellant is required to establish that such work was primarily and basically linked with the transmission of electricity. Each and every contract has to be examined for the said purpose - it is deemed fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority to re-decide the said issue. Penalties - HELD THAT - As the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is set aside, there are no justifiable reasons to impose penalties upon the appellants. The same are set aside in toto. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Demand of service tax on works contract services provided to M/s U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. 2. Validity of demand raised for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14. 3. Applicability of exemptions under Notification No. 45/2010-CE and Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012. 4. Limitation period for raising the demand. 5. Imposition of penalties under various sections. Analysis: Issue 1: Demand of service tax on works contract services provided to M/s U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The appellant was providing works contract services to M/s U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. A demand of service tax amounting to around ?86 lakhs was raised against them, but during adjudication, a major part of the demand was dropped as the services were related to the construction of roads, which were deemed non-taxable. However, a demand of ?13,84,723/- was confirmed by the Commissioner in relation to the construction of civil structures at the sub-station site, along with interest and penalties imposed on the appellants. Issue 2: Validity of demand raised for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14 The advocate for the appellant challenged the demand on both merits and limitation grounds. Regarding limitation, it was argued that since the services were provided to Uttar Pradesh state enterprises, there was no mala fide intention to suppress facts from the Revenue, as they were entitled to recover the service tax amount from the state enterprises. The Tribunal was inclined to agree that the major part of the demand might be barred by limitation. Issue 3: Applicability of exemptions under Notification No. 45/2010-CE and Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 The appellant contended that the works undertaken by them were in connection with the transmission of electricity, which could be exempted under relevant notifications. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, the appellant argued that the work was linked to the transmission of electricity and should be considered exempt. Issue 4: Limitation period for raising the demand The Tribunal found that there could be a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that services provided to a government organization might not be taxable. It was noted that the burden to establish mala fide intention lay with the Revenue, and in the absence of evidence indicating such intention, the demand could be limited by the period of limitation. Issue 5: Imposition of penalties under various sections Since a portion of the demand fell within the normal limitation period, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority to re-decide the issue of whether the work was primarily linked to the transmission of electricity for the period within the limitation. Penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside due to the decision on limitation. In conclusion, the demand beyond the normal limitation period was set aside, and penalties were revoked. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
