2017 (9) TMI 1126 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - construction service - works contract service - Held that - the appellant is liable to pay service tax under works contract service and they did not discharge the same. During the course of investigation, they have paid service tax partly, ₹ 14,39,977/-; the additional amount of ₹ 12 lakhs towards this tax liability was discharged only in 27/03/2017. Even now, the full tax liability on this has not being discharged alongwith interest. No bonafide reason or reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax during the material time could be ascertained from the appeal papers - penalty upheld. Commercial or industrial construction service - works contract - applicability of decision in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs Versus M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and others 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT - Held that - the applicability of decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. has to be verified - The relevant date also has to be re-calculated in terms of Section 73 (6) wherever variation from such provision is contested by the Revenue - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax liability on services rendered to two companies.
2. Penalties imposed under Section 76, 77, and 78 of Finance Act, 1994.
3. Discharge of service tax liability.
4. Calculation of limitation period.
5. Applicability of legal precedent to works contract service.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with appeals against an order related to tax liability on services provided to two companies. The appellant, engaged in construction activities, faced tax demands for works contract service provided to M/s Kishangarh and commercial/industrial construction service to M/s Giral Lignite. The Original Authority confirmed a tax liability of &8377;41,91,848 and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The appellant did not contest the tax liability for services to M/s Kishangarh but sought a waiver of penalties for delayed payment. For services to M/s Giral Lignite, the appellant claimed that the work was completed before 01/06/2007, and as per legal precedent, no tax liability should arise for the period before that date. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of filing statutory returns, not the date of service.

3. The Tribunal found that the appellant had partially paid the tax liability for services to M/s Kishangarh but had not paid the full amount even after a considerable delay. No valid reason for the delay was provided, leading the Tribunal to uphold the penalties imposed by the Original Authority. Regarding services to M/s Giral Lignite, the Tribunal directed a re-examination of the applicability of the legal precedent and the calculation of the limitation period, remanding the case for a fresh decision.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period was crucial only concerning the contract with M/s Giral Lignite and should be determined based on a proper assessment of the legal precedent cited. Both appeals were allowed for further review on the specific issues highlighted, providing guidance for the Original Authority to reconsider and make a fresh determination based on the Tribunal's directions.