9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of Rajasthan is treated as a developer or a contractor, the applicant becomes a sub-contractor and therefore, the activities of the sub-contractor in terms of agreement with a Department of a State should be treated as supply of services to SEZ developer and therefore, the services rendered by them are exempted. – Held that:- Government of Rajasthan could not be treated as a developer of SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Nataraj, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Singla, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) of Rajasthan Government for the purpose of laying pipe lines for supplying water to Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Z developer and therefore, the services rendered by them are exempted. 3.1 On the above grounds, the learned Advocate seeks waiver of pre-deposit of service tax demand of Rs. 1,31,74,347/- confirmed under category of works contract service . 3.2 The learned Advocate also submits that all the relevant particulars about the receipt of amounts from Rajasthan Government were reflected in the ST3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the works contract. The demand of service tax has been inflated and if the benefit of composition was to be granted demand would be about Rs. 20 lakhs only for the entire period. 5.3 On the aspect of time-bar, we find that the basis for availing exemption by them was their claimed belief that the Government of Rajasthan was a developer of SEZ or a contractor which cannot be treated as bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
