2022 (11) TMI 1007 - AT - Service Tax

Non/short payment of service tax - Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - benefits of Notification No. 12/2003 ST .dated 20.06.2003 - HELD THAT - The condition in the Notification is only production of documentary proof indicating the value of the goods and materials supplied. This does not in any manner mean that the goods have to necessarily be supplied under invoices. Therefore, evidence was produced before the authority and the sufficiency of it has to be examined. If the appellant is able to show from the documents i.e. contract read with other documents including its R.A. Bills (Running Account Bills) ,books of accounts and returns filed with the Sales Tax Authorities, the value of goods sold and supplied to the satisfaction of the authorities, it would be compliance with the condition provided in Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20 June, 2003. Matter remanded to the Original authority to reconsider the impugned matter afresh and pass order after permitting the appellant to lead documentary evidence to establish its claim with regard to the value of goods and materials supplied in execution of its contracts for construction services for availing of the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20 June, 2003. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 regarding exemption on service tax for value of goods and materials sold by the service provider.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 providing exemption to construction services.
3. Correctness of the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties imposed on the Appellant.
4. Evaluation of evidence presented by the Appellant regarding the value of goods and materials supplied for construction services.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003, which exempted the value of goods and materials sold by a service provider from service tax. The Appellant claimed that service tax was only liable on labor charges as they separately showed the value of material sold in the invoice. However, the authorities found that the Appellant wrongly availed the benefits of this notification, resulting in a demand for unpaid service tax of Rs. 4,73,444. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the condition of providing documentary proof of the value of goods and materials sold must be satisfied for exemption under this notification.

2. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004, which provided an exemption to construction services under certain conditions. The Appellant's eligibility for this exemption was questioned based on the nature of work indicated in the invoice and the lack of evidence regarding the sale of materials used in providing construction services. The Tribunal emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to establish the value of goods and materials supplied for availing of exemptions under relevant notifications.

3. The Adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order. The Tribunal, upon review, remanded the matter back to the original authority to reconsider the case afresh, allowing the Appellant to present documentary evidence to support their claim regarding the value of goods and materials supplied for construction services. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

4. The Tribunal's decision focused on the importance of providing documentary evidence to substantiate claims for exemptions under relevant notifications. The case highlighted the necessity of fulfilling conditions specified in the notifications to avoid incorrect availing of benefits and subsequent demands for unpaid taxes. The remand to the original authority aimed to allow the Appellant a fair opportunity to establish their compliance with the notification requirements and address the issues raised during the audit and adjudication process.

← Previous Next →