9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l amount of ₹67, 500, the appellant received sum of ₹57,700/- for road cutting charges from Gail Gas Dewas and thereafter small amounts of ₹3,000/- have been received from other companies which, according to the appellant have been received for construction of public road, which has been damaged by them on account of their personal work done on the public road at industrial area in Dewas. There is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification and therefore, the demand of service tax is unsustainable. Land Application Processing Fees - HELD THAT:- The description given by the appellant is that the fees charged for processing the land application form for the allotment of land to industrial units, is actually the purchase of land application form for purchase of land for which forms are generally published online and the industrial units submit the required details in the said application along with the land premium which is actually related to the purchase of the land. The processing fees does not relate to any specific activity of processing. The learned counsel for the appellant agreed upon that the term land application processing fees has been wro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant Mr. Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER 1. The appellant has assailed the order in Appeal No.IND-EXCUS-000-APP-117-2022-23 dated 10.03.2023 confirming the demand of service tax. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing Renting of Immovable Property Service , Business, Auxiliary Service , and Construction, Repair and Maintenance Services . During the course of audit and reconciliation of figures of amounts received against various financial services shown in the profit and loss accounts and ST-3 returns of the appellant pertaining to the year 2012 13, it was noticed that there is difference in the taxable value shown in the profit and loss account and ST-3 returns amounting to ₹25,83,338/-. 3. Show cause notice dated 25.05.2016 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax on account of: (i) Differential value of Service Tax : Rs.6942/- (ii) Road Cutting charges : 8343/- (iii) Land Application Processing Fees : Rs.13,601/- (iv) Street Light Charges : 1329/- 4. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, however, in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals); the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication. On remand, the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the total amount of ₹67, 500, the appellant received sum of ₹57,700/- for road cutting charges from Gail Gas Dewas and thereafter small amounts of ₹3,000/- have been received from other companies which, according to the appellant have been received for construction of public road, which has been damaged by them on account of their personal work done on the public road at industrial area in Dewas. There is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification and therefore, the demand of service tax is unsustainable. 9. Regarding the amount of ₹1,10,040/- towards Land Application Processing Fees , the revenue has gone by the nomenclature processing fees which shows that the amount has been charged for processing of application. The description given by the appellant is that the fees charged for processing the land application form for the allotment of land to industrial units, is actually the purchase of land application form for purchase of land for which forms are generally published online and the industrial units submit the required details in the said application along with the land premium which is actually related to the purchase of the land. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities below. 12. The differential value of service tax has been included by the revenue on the ground that the appellant had justified sum of ₹25,27,169/- only out of the total taxable value shown as Rs.25,83,338/- and therefore on the amount of ₹56,169/-, service tax is leviable. It appears that amount of Rs.25,83,338/- has been directly taken from Note 16 of the balance sheet, whereas the appellant had taken the amount as per the Ledger records. The revenue was required to clarify the service under which the differential amount of ₹56,169/- was chargeable. The appellant has rightly contended that no service tax can be determined without clarifying the category of service under which the said amount can be attributed. Consequently, the service tax on account of differential value cannot be sustained. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant next submitted that the show cause notice dated 25.05.2016 for the period 2012-2013 is barred by limitation and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there is no allegation of suppression, fraud or wilful mis-statement by the revenue. Moreover, referring to various decisions, the learned counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
