Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Tribunal and the Courts; no positive act of commission/ omission on the part of the appellants is evidenced to allege suppression of fact, mis-declaration with intent to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. Therefore, the Revenue has not made out even a weak case for invocation of extended period. The Show Cause Notice issued invoking extended period is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuant of the same requires to be set aside. It is further found that certain portion of the demand is beyond the extended period also. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Atul Gupta , Chartered Accountant for the Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,15,281/-. 2. Shri Atul Gupta, learned Consultant for the appellant, submits that the learned Commissioner held in the impugned order that: Valuation at the rate of 40% in terms of Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 in respect of contracts with Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) is correct and appellant s claim that as per the contract, only 20% is service portion and 80% is the material portion is not evidenced by documents. Projects undertaken for Chandigarh Housing Board, HEWO and CDAO (Nasik) are taxable. Projects undertaken for Military Engineering Service, Director General and Unity Infra Project Ltd. were exempt. Gross value requires to be taken from 26AS statement as the appellants did not submit a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tant on the merits of the case is as follows: (i) The contract with AWHO itself says that the material and labour portions of the contract is 80:20; therefore, it was wrong to take recourse to Valuation Rules. (ii) The appellants have paid Rs.54,35,877/- which is not reflected in ST-3 Returns; allowance cannot be denied for the reason that the tax paid has not been reflected in ST-3 Returns. (iii) Service tax of Rs.9,69,942/- in respect of work undertaken for CDAO (Nasik) has been paid subsequently and the same has not been considered. (iv) Service tax of Rs.6,39,090/- on the project undertaken for Chandigarh Housing Board is not payable as the work was related to construction of houses for weaker sections. The appellant can show the eviden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Ltd. and the grounds of appeal in respect of appeal filed by the Revenue. He further submits that: (i) Appellants claim that Rs.54,35,877/- was paid but not reflected in Returns is incorrect as the challan showing the above payment has an endorsement to the effect that the amount paid in excess will be adjusted towards the tax liability from 01.04.2016 onwards. (ii) The appellants claim that the period April to June 2012 is beyond limitation is devoid of merit as the appellants could not produce any documentary evidence for filing of the Return. (iii) The claim of the appellant regarding the contract with AWHO that the material component is 80% and labour is only 20% is incorrect as in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... period, divergent opinion was being taken by the Tribunal and the Courts; no positive act of commission/ omission on the part of the appellants is evidenced to allege suppression of fact, mis-declaration with intent to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Revenue has not made out even a weak case for invocation of extended period. We find that the Show Cause Notice issued invoking extended period is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuant of the same requires to be set aside. We further find that certain portion of the demand is beyond the extended period also. As far as Revenue s appeal is concerned, as the very Show-Cause Notice which is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates