2013 (5) TMI 478 - HC - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - Electrification work of underground cabling, lightning work, external electrification, shifting work and electrification of roads - constructions of 11 KV sub stations and external electrification work. - agreement with Ghaziabad Development Authority and Greater Noida Development Authority. - held that - The activities were liable to Service Tax under the category of construction of residential complex services , work contract services and erection, commissioning & installation services as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzzh), 65 (105) (zzzza) and 65 (105) (zzd) respectively of the Finance Act, 1994. Regarding Search - held that - Since the petitioner was not registered, and was not paying Service Tax, the material collected by the department was sufficient for authorization by the Commissioner Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad to search the premises under Section 82 (1) (2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994. Since all the records could not be found during search operation, summons were issued on 27.10.2010, 19.11.2010, 07.12.2010, 19.01.2011, 02.02.201, 09.02.2011 and 13.02.2011, in respect to which, the petitioner did not produce the documents. The petitioner has adopted a non-cooperative attitude and collected mob on the spot and sensitized them of the requirement of law and threatened the officers, while the search continued. - there was sufficient material with the Department, to authorize carrying out the search. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of search conducted by the respondent.
2. Validity of summons issued by the respondent.
3. Liability of the petitioner to pay service tax.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in electrification work, challenged the legality of a search conducted under Section 82 of the Finance Act 1994 at its premises. The search was authorized based on intelligence gathered regarding taxable services provided to government authorities. The petitioner alleged that no notice or summons was issued before the search, and the search party removed all documents. The petitioner's non-cooperation during the search resulted in incomplete document collection, leading to subsequent summons for non-payment of service tax. The petitioner argued that the search was unauthorized and illegal due to lack of proper reasons and absence of authorized personnel during the search.

2. The petitioner contested the validity of the summons issued by the department for non-payment of service tax. The department claimed the petitioner received substantial amounts for taxable services rendered to government authorities. Despite multiple summons requesting relevant documents, the petitioner failed to comply, leading to accusations of non-cooperation and withholding crucial information necessary for inquiry. The petitioner's defense emphasized the alleged illegality of the search operation as a basis for challenging the validity of the summons.

3. The court examined the petitioner's liability to pay service tax for services provided to government authorities. The petitioner's contracts with the Ghaziabad Development Authority involved taxable services falling under various categories defined by the Finance Act 1994. The department's material indicated the petitioner's non-registration and non-payment of service tax, prompting the search authorization under Section 82. The petitioner's failure to produce requested documents post-search further raised suspicions of non-compliance. The court found sufficient grounds for the search based on the petitioner's activities and the department's preliminary investigations, dismissing the petitioner's arguments against the legality of the search and the subsequent summons.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality of the search operation and the validity of the summons issued by the department. The judgment emphasized the department's authority to conduct searches based on gathered intelligence and the petitioner's apparent non-compliance with service tax regulations despite engaging in taxable services.