9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 190 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT - As per the Audit report, the appellant has paid the service tax as demanded. In that circumstances, the demand for the period up to March, 2016, is not sustainable against the appellant. Further, as per the impugned order, the demand has been raised up to June, 2017, which is not included in the year 2016-2017. The said demand has been raised on the basis of Form 26AS. In this regard, the Works Contracts is perused - As per the Works Order, it is clear that the appellant was engaged in the activity of construction of road, which is exempted from payment of service tax. Penalty - HELD THAT - The demand of service tax is not sustainable against the appellant. As the demand is not sustainable, consequently, penalty is also not imposable on the appellant. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against demand of service tax for the period October 2014 to March 2015 (up to June 2017) based on extended period of limitation.
Summary: The appellant, engaged in providing contract services for construction works, was in appeal against the demand of service tax confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation. An audit conducted for the period April 2011 to March 2016 resulted in a demand of Rs.2,77,928, which was paid by the appellant. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued based on Form 26AS from the Income Tax Department, alleging non-payment of service tax. The matter was adjudicated, and the demand was confirmed, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that as a construction service provider, they were covered under the Negative List and not liable to pay service tax. The Revenue contended that the appellant's failure to submit requested documents justified the confirmed demand. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the audit report confirmed the payment of service tax up to March 2016, rendering the demand for that period unsustainable. Additionally, the demand raised up to June 2017 was based on Form 26AS, but the Works Order indicated the appellant's exemption from service tax for construction of roads. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand of service tax was not sustainable and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed on the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. *(Pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2024)*
|
