2018 (4) TMI 1039 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - Construction of Commercial Building services - abatement under N/N. 15/2004-ST - Held that - The appellants claimed that they have rendered a composite service with supply of materials as well as the provision of service during the material time and the tax liability will arise only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larson & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT - This aspect requires re-examination by the original authority. Consideration to be taxed - Held that - The claim of the appellant is that they have been filing ST-3 returns and the same can be verified with supporting evidences - matter remanded for reconsideration. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of services for taxing, abatement claim under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, total receipt of taxable income, composite service with supply of materials, consideration liable to be taxed, re-examination based on Apex Court decision, verification of receipts in bank account, re-adjudication of other issues.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the main issue revolved around the valuation of services for taxing purposes. The dispute centered on the abatement claim under Notification No. 15/2004-ST and the total receipt of taxable income. The Revenue contended that the services provided were Finishing and Completion Services under Construction of Commercial Building, without allowing any abatement. The gross value for taxation was determined based on bank statements, which the appellant argued included non-taxable receipts. The Tribunal noted the appellant's claim of rendering a composite service with material supply and service provision, stating that tax liability would arise only from June 1, 2007, as per a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal directed a re-examination by the original authority in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Regarding the consideration liable to be taxed, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that various receipts in the bank account should not automatically constitute taxable value under Section 67 of the Act. The appellant's assertion of filing ST-3 returns with verifiable supporting evidence was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed this aspect necessitating re-adjudication. Additionally, issues concerning limitation, penalty, and other matters were left open for further review.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to provide the appellants with a proper opportunity to present their case. The judgment highlighted the importance of re-examining the valuation aspects and verifying the taxable consideration, ensuring a fair and thorough adjudication process.