9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st on short paid GTA Jan' 2005-Sept' 10 10,48,178 5 Renting of Immovable Property (RIPS) 1.6.2007 to 30.9.2011 2,19,513 6 Late fee for filing returns late 12,600 2. In respect of confirmed demand of Rs. 11,29,88,318/- the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that this Appellant has provided the services for various irrigation projects in respect of 12 different projects. The projects pertains to construction of canals and water pipelines for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Apart from these 12 projects, in respect of one project given by NTPC Ltd., they have taken up work of construction of sewerage system for them. The details of the work undertaken by them for these 12 projects as well as the work undertaken for NTPC is as per the following table: 1 EluruPkg 7 Package no 7/kds/07-08, Modernization of Krishna delta system-Krishna District, Krishna Eluru Canal from km. 4.220 to km 48.720 and its distributories. 2 GNSS 11/06 Package No. 11/06-Investigation, Designs and formation of Sri Balaji reservoir near Karakambadi village, Renigunta(M) under GNSS in Chittor District. 3 LMC-1 Conduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia., Ms Pipes, jointing, Refilling of Trenches and Hydro testing. 13 M/s. NTPC Ltd Site levelling by filling ash/earth for plant-all roads and drains in plant areas storm water pump house-sewerage system construction of offices and stores including internal electrification-boundary wall modification of existing boundary wall - open steel yard. 3. He submits that the issue as to whether the Works Contract undertaken for various infrastructure projects like canal and other pipeline works is no more res integra and covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Ltd., Vs CC, CE & ST, [Hyderabad 2015 (38) STR 709 Tri-LB] has held that canal works and other works carried out for various Government projects, which are not commercial in nature are exempted from Service Tax payment. Relying on this Larger Bench decision the Hyderabad Tribunal has set aside the demands in the following cases: 2.2. Basing on the above decision, numerous demands were dropped the Tribunal including this Hon'ble Tribunal. Few decisions are cited below: (a) IVRCL-Navyuga-Sew Joint Venture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Adjudicating Authority. 6. In respect of the confirmed demand of Rs. 2,19,513/- in respect of immovable property, the Learned Counsel submits that the present Appellant had let out his property to a Diagnostic Centre/Hospital and he does not have full records to clarify as to whether the same was used as residential property or not. But he submits that the Show Cause Notice issued for the extended period is not legally sustainable. He submits that the definition of Renting of Immovable Property under Section 65(105)(zzzz) was amended on 08.05.2010 by Notification No. 08/2011 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007. He relies on the case law of Tadi Satya Rama Linga Reddy Vs CCE, ST & CUS Visakhapatnam-II [2017 (4) GSTL 421 (TRIHYD)]. In this case, it has been held that when an amendment has been carried out with retrospective effect, the Assessee cannot be fastened with the demand for the extended period. On this ground, the Counsel argues that in this present case the demand for the extended period is required to be set aside. 7. The Learned AR has submitted Synopsis towards his submissions. He sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Government/Government undertakings and involving associated activities like trenching, soil preparation and filling, supporting masonry work, jointing of pipes, electro-mechanical works or pumping stations and like activity, is classifiable only under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services (CICS) for the period upto 01.06.2007 and not under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS); (b) Issues (B); (C) and (D): (i) Construction of canals for irrigation or water supply; construction or laying of pipelines/ conduits for lift irrigation conceived and integrated into a dam project, must be classified as works contract "in respect of dam" and is thus excluded from the scope of "Works Contract Service" defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act, in view of the exclusionary clause in the provision; 13. This Tribunal Tribunal in the case of Vishwa Infrastructure & Pvt Ltd.,Vs CCE& ST Hyd-II [2019 (229) GSTL 352 TRI-Hyd] has held as under: 5. We have examined the arguments on both sides and perused the records. We find that the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Lanco Infratech Ltd., (supra) is identical to the dispute in hand. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating Authority to verify all the documentary evidence to be produced by the Appellant on the above counts. The final amount of demand on account of NTPC transaction will be arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority, which is required to be paid by the Appellant along with interest and penalty @ of 25% of the confirmed amount. 17. For the confirmed demand on account of GTA services, it is seen that when the opportunity was given to the Appellant at the Adjudication stage to come up with all their submissions along with documentary evidence, the Appellant has not done so. They should have produced the documentary evidence to the effect that some of the freight charges were incurred on account of GTO and as to how the same was exempted from Service Tax, if any. Instead of making such detailed submission along with documentary evidence, the Appellant was simply questioning the quantification which has been correctly done by the Department based on the Profit & Loss Account figures of the Appellant. The Appellant does not dispute the figures taken from the Profit & Loss Account. Therefore, we see no merits in the present Appeal with regard to the confirmed dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
