9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.04.2015. This Perusal is sufficient to hold that for the period in dispute, the condition that contracts for rendering construction/WCS services to be executed prior to 01.03.2015 was no more in existence as it was omitted with effect from 1.04.2015. Resultantly the services as that of construction provided to Government/ local authority/Governmental authority remain exempted from entire service tax liability irrespective the date of contract for the purpose is post 01.03.2015. In the present case the contract is 19.08.2015 i.e. post-1.04.2015 hence, the condition of contract to be executed prior 1.03.2015 is held to have wrongly being relied upon/invoked by the adjudicating authority below while confirming the demand of Rs.9,56,210. Admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiny of those documents department observed that the appellant had received a total sum of Rs.2,03,37,152/- for rendering W.C.S to Public Works Departments (P.W.D) Khandwa, Nagar Palika, Nigam Khandwa and Nagar Panchayat Bhikangaon by way of constructing a girls hostel and drainage respectively. The appellant was also observed to have received an amount of Rs.28,50,000/- against providing private labour works. Those activities of the appellant are opined to be taxable activities of the appellant rendered in the Financial Year (FY) 2015-16 on which the appellant had not paid the Service Tax nor even filed the ST-3 Returns For FY-2015-16 and filed the nil Returns for FY-2016-17. Same is opined to be an act of suppression. Resultantly vide Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in view of notification no 25/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012 entry no 12 A(a). This notification exempts the Works Contract Service when provided to the government authorities, local authorities or to the governmental authorities. The W.C.S for construction of drainage is also mentioned to have been exempted under the definition of Construction Services itself. It is further mentioned that the construction of hostel is not construction of residential complex as hostel is a one building. Individual room of hostel building cannot be equated to a residential house or a flat. Findings based on such presumption are alleged as wrong and thus are liable to be set aside, in terms of entry no 14(b) of notification no 25/2012-ST dated 20.07.2012 Thus t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate stamp duty, where applicable, had been paid prior to that date. Since in the instant case, the contract has been entered on 19.08.2015 hence exemption under S.no. 12A(a) of Notification No. 25/2012 is not available to the appellant On the issue of limitation and penalty it is submitted that the party either filed the NIL return or didn t file any return. Even if the party is providing the exempted services the party was liable to fill the prescribed columns of the returns and ST-3 should have been filed Learned AR has relied upon the decision in the case of Rajesh Vs AC, CGST CE, Chennai(2023) 11 Centax 62 High Court Madras. In view of the foregoing Learned AR reiterated the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and prayed for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of thereof, would have been available had the contract been entered. Prior 01-03-2015 Based on this ground the service tax of Rs.9,56,210/- has still been confirmed while allowing benefit of value abatement and Cum-Tax benefits to the appellant. The contract of the appellant is dated 19.08.2015 (post-01.03.2015). 8. In light of above observations the only question to be decided is as to: Whether the benefit of entry 12 A (a) of notification 25/2012 was available only for such contracts as were executed before 01.03.2015, 9. For the purpose the said relevant entry is perused which reads as follows: 12A. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a Governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case the contract is 19.08.2015 i.e. post-1.04.2015 hence, the condition of contract to be executed prior 1.03.2015 is held to have wrongly being relied upon/invoked by the adjudicating authority below while confirming the demand of Rs.9,56,210. Admittedly the Service in question has been rendered to government/ local authority (PWD) In light of the above the discussion the said demand is held liable to be set aside. 10. Coming to the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation while issuing the impugned show cause notice, I observe that the non-filing of ST-3 returns is alleged as the act of suppression. However, it has been observed that even in reply to the show cause notice, the appellant had explained that exemption being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
