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

2025 (1) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Superintendent in the said report. It is thus observed that the ld. Adjudicating authority has not examined the claim of the appellant that they rendered the services of construction of road, bridge, etc., and the said services are exempted from payment of service tax as per entry no. 13 of Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The Ld. Commissioner has not given any finding in the impugned order on this claim of the appellant. Hence, the demand confirmed in the impugned order, without verifying the eligibility of the said Notification benefit to the appellant, is liable to be set aside. Conclusion - The adjudicating authority must thoroughly verify exemption claims and cannot disregard internal reports without justification. The adj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the confirmation of the demands, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that they have not received the copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 13.10.2021 before the process of Personal Hearing. Further, they have submitted that the issue of Service Tax demand has already been settled for the SCN period. In this regard, the appellant also submits that at the time of personal hearing they have produced the closure report submitted by Superintendent, CGST CX, Range-IV, Hazaribagh to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST CX, Division Hazaribagh on 26.11.2021 on the issue of Service Tax liability of the appellant. 3.1. It is their submission that they have provided the services of construction of road, bridge etc to the Governmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8500/- REO (W) Division, Chatra 11611056/- Total 15,08,07,464/- Total 4,62,48,659/- 5.1. We observe that the service tax liability of the appellant was examined by the Superintendent, CGST CX, Range-IV, Hazaribagh and he has submitted his report to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST CX, Division Hazaribagh on 26.11.2021. For the sake of ready reference, the said report is reproduced below:- 5.2. A perusal of the report of the Superintendent reproduced above reveals that: On examination of the work order/agreement/payment certificate provided by the said assessee it is found that they received amount during FY 2016-17 2017-18 for the work of construction of Road Bridges. As per entry no. 13 of Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012, Service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eptable to me. The exemptions are not without conditions and it says the roads/bridges are to be for public use. The Superintendent, CGST CX, Range-IV, Hazaribagh has not discussed the nature of service provided by the noticee to each of their service recipients. 4.3 Further, on perusal of the Financial Statements for the Year ending 31-March, 2017 submitted by the noticee, I find that receipt from Revenue from Operations is Rs 19,14,31,801/- and receipts from other miscellaneous income is Rs 6,832/-total (Rs19,14,38,633/-). The SCN demand is not based on 26 AS receipts rather it is based on ITR/Financial Statement receipts which is much higher than the 26 AS receipts. The noticee have not offered any explanation on this. Similarly, the SCN .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Superintendent in the said report. We thus observe that the ld. Adjudicating authority has not examined the claim of the appellant that they rendered the services of construction of road, bridge, etc., and the said services are exempted from payment of service tax as per entry no. 13 of Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The Ld. Commissioner has not given any finding in the impugned order on this claim of the appellant. Hence, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order, without verifying the eligibility of the said Notification benefit to the appellant, is liable to be set aside. 6. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The adjudica .....

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