9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01/06/2007 as the contract executed by them being ‘works contract’, the question of imposing penalty u/s 76 and 78 of the FA, 1994 does not arise - The law has been settled by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Gupta [2015 (5) TMI 566 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein their Lordships held that once an assessee was not liable to pay tax under the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, as he was not providing any taxable service at that point of time, penalty imposable u/s 76 does not arise - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - ST/75/2009 - A/86642/17/STB - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court of Bombay. The Hon ble High Court of Bombay set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the appeal to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to consider the entire case and record finding on all the issues raised and specifically as to the questions raised by the appellant before the Hon ble High Court. 5. Learned Counsel would submit that the question of law as raised in paragraph 18 of the appeal preferred before the Hon ble High Court is at page No.8 of the copy of the appeal filed. After taking us through the various questions of law, he submits that the entire issue now boils down only to ascertain whether the services rendered by the appellant are in the nature of Works Contract prior to 01/06/2007 and not taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant were inclusive of all the taxes including service tax, hence it cannot be said that the service tax has been collected from their clients and not deposited to the Government. He would submit that provisions of Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 were introduced w.e.f. 18/04/2006 and it talks about a situation wherein an amount is collected as a service tax which is not supposed to collect. It is his submission, in the case in hand, appellant has already deposited the entire amount of tax before the issuance of the show cause notice. He would submit that since the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra) held that the works contract cannot be taxed independently under any other head prior a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty as well as the show cause notice, records that the contract which were entered into by the appellant were in respect of water treatment plant executed for the various government projects and were for complete errection, commissioning and installation of various projects which according to them was in respect of a contract which is termed as works contract . We find from the records that the appellant has been claiming that they have discharged the works contract tax /VAT to the concerned authorities and had registered the contracts as works contract service . The adjudicating authority has discarded these submissions only on the ground that the appellant himself has classified the service as Erection, Commissioning and Installation Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
