9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more residential units. Apparently, all the constructions appear to be for residential purposes and not commercial purposes - the levy of service tax appears to be doubtful in absence of details and findings recorded by the ld. Commissioner. Appellant directed to deposit 7.5% of the disputed tax by way of predeposit after adjusting tax already paid. Pursuant to such deposit, balance amount of tax, interest and penalty shall remained stayed till disposal of appeal. - Appeal No.53724/14) - STAY ORDER No.70479/2016 - Dated:- 7-11-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri D. K. Deb, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants have received gross amount inclusive of sales tax and the appellant is constructing civil structures for ADA and during the period from June, 2007 to March, 2012, the appellant have received a gross amount of ₹ 19,13,90,476/-, and the Revenue worked out the service tax of ₹ 74,07,820/-, on composition basis. As it appeared to Revenue that the appellant is providing taxable service under the category of Works Contract Services , for which, the appellant is registered with the Revenue. It further appeared that the appellant had deliberately not complied with the provisions of Service Tax Act and Rules and have also deliberately suppressed the facts from the Revenue by not filing statutory returns. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Ambedkar Vihar Yojna, Allahabad contract dated 07.12.2004. Cost of the project is ₹ 8,36,34,690/-. Period 2 years ; (iv) Devghat Jhalwa Awas Yojna, Allahabad contract dated 18.12.2009. Cost of the works construction of the project is ₹ 2,84,39,855/- ; (v) Devghat Jhalwa Awas Yojna, Group Housing Flats contract dated 25.02.2011. Cost of the works construction of the project is ₹ 5,44,51,044/-. Period 18 months. 2.4 As the appellant had failed to submit his reply on merit to the SCN, the ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned order on the basis of material on record observing that it is clear that the appellant has rendered Works Contract Services to ADA and service tax liability comes to ₹ 74,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. ADA is a statutory authority created under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 by assisting the municipal authorities in the planned development of cities. 3. This Tribunal, when the appeal was earlier taken up on 30 th August, 2016, directed the appellant to give break-up of the total tax and disputed tax, if any, and in response to this, the appellants have submitted that, the actual payment received by them from ADA during this period is not ₹ 19,13,90,476/-, but ₹ 17,00,71,178/-. The appellant further urged that the demand raised with the penalty, is not correct and also extended period of limitation is not invokable under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The ld.A.R. for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
