9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants have violated the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 by not obtaining the service tax registration (till 18-02-2009) and by not paying the service tax payable thereon on the taxable value of services rendered. A case was registered against the appellants, investigated and a show cause notice dated 20-10-2011 was issued proposing demand of (i) service tax amount of Rs. 1,08,308/- payable on the taxable service of Commercial or industrial construction service for the period upto 31-05-2007 (ii) service tax amount of Rs. 5,78,939/- payable on taxable service of Works Contract service for the period 01-06-2007 to 31-03-2011 along with interest thereof and imposition of penalties. The notice was adjudicated and lower authority, vide O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, no liability would arise prior to 01-06-2007, on the activities of the Appellant. 3.3 There was an exchange of correspondence between the appellant and the department in respect of new levy of service tax. In fact, the appellant through their society challenged the new levy by way of filing writ petition No. 28470/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said writ petition is still pending. The same fact also conveyed to the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad vice his letter dated 29-09-2008, wherein, the appellant disclosed turnover details from 10-09-2004 to 31-03-2008 and explained his case. The said fact was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01-06-2007, there was no service tax payable on works contract services. This fact has been completely ignored by the demand notice. 3.10 After rectification of the above mistakes apparent on demand notice, if it is re-quantified, the demand would only be around Rs. 3,34,702/- and not Rs. 6,87,247/- as alleged in the notice. 4. The learned AR Sri. S. Reddy vigorously opposed the appeal and contended that as the appellant failed to take registration and suppressed facts, the invocation of extended period is correct and proper. However he fairly conceded that in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro case, the liability on Works Contract Services would arise only w.e.f 01-06-2007. 5. We have heard both sides and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so takes cognizance of the fact that the appellants had approached the A.P. High Court with regard to dispute to nature of service provided by them. This being so, it is patently incorrect for the department to allege in the said show cause notice, wilful suppression of facts. In consequence, invocation of extended period in the show cause notice is not justifiable and the demand of tax will have to be limited to the normal period of one year computed from the date of service of notice which the appellant has claimed to be 01-11-2011. iii) The appellant has contended that rate of service tax on WCS has been computed wrongly at 4% instead of 2% from 01-06-2007 to 20-08-2008; that demand has ignored and not taken into account that their abat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
