9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 2011-12, with interest and further penalties have been imposed @ Rs. 200/- per day or 2% per month of the tax, whichever is higher under Section 76, penalties of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77, Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 (2), Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 (1) (a) and Rs. 74,07,820/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had registered with the Service Tax Department on 28th March, 2008. SCN dated 17th October, 2012 was issued as it appeared to Revenue that the appellant is liable to service tax under the classification of "Works Contract Services" and have not discharged the liability under service tax. The details of works done and payment receipts were called for by the Revenue vide l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to service tax in respect of all the works contracts of civil nature, which have been completed by it prior to 1st June, 2007. However, if any works contract has been awarded prior to 1st June, 2007, and was still under completion on the said date or thereafter, payment received after 1st June, 2007 would be liable to service tax. Similar will be the position in respect of works contracts of civil nature awarded from 1st June, 2007 till 1st July, 2012. 2.3 It is further case of the Revenue that pursuant to the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant failed to provide the details of work done as regards tax free nature of works executed, in spite of sufficient notice and opportunity given by the Revenue. As per Para 22 of the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been incorrectly computed and no interest is recoverable and no penalties are imposable upon them. It is also urged that some of the works contract, which were allotted and the works executed thereof, started prior to 1st June, 2007, did not contain any provision for service tax and therefore, the appellants had requested to ADA to pay the service tax, but such representation have not been decided by the ADA. Under such circumstances, the appellants had filed another Writ Petition No.27849 of 2005 for a direction to ADA to dispose of the representations of the appellants for payment of service tax to the appellants as applicable, who are held in default by the Revenue. The ADA in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble High Court for dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Allahabad, appear to be not taxable, being flats constructed for lower income groups, also in respect of all five projects as noticed in Para 22 of the impugned order and also noticed by us herein before, there is no findings by the ld. Commissioner if any residential block constructed have 12 or more residential units. Apparently, all the constructions appear to be for residential purposes and not commercial purposes. Accordingly, the levy of service tax appears to be doubtful in absence of details and findings recorded by the ld. Commissioner. 6. Having considered the rival contention, we think it just and proper to direct the appellant to deposit 7.5% of the disputed tax by way of predeposit after adjusting tax already paid. Pursuant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
