Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (3) TMI 814

der had paid sale tax on the said material - Held that:- In the grounds of appeal Revenue has stated that similar projects were also executed by Municipalities. Therefore, we do not find any strength in the grounds raised by Revenue. We, therefore, uphold the impugned Order-in-Original in so far as it relates to setting aside the demand of service tax in respect of such construction work which were provided to various agencies as dealt with in the impugned proceedings - appeal of Revenue dismissed. - Benefit of N/N. 01/2006 dated 01/03/2006 - work undertaken was with material and there was no transfer of property in goods involved - time limitation - Held that:- During the period 2011-12 the service provider was liable to pay service tax of ₹ 97 lakhs. Whereas the confirmation of demand was for ₹ 43 lakhs and there is no information about service tax paid during the year 2011-12 therefore the contention of the learned counsel for service provider that the demand for the period from April, 2011 to June, 2012 is barred by limitation is worth consideration. - APPEAL Nos. ST/70442 & 70543/2017-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs. - 70465-70466/2019 - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - Mrs. Arc .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 in respect of services provided to entities like GNIDA, UPRNNL, KDA and IRCON International Ltd. and Railways and that the service provider was not entitled to avail the said exemption since the authorities to whom services were provided were not governmental authorities. It appear to Revenue that during the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16 service provider should have paid service tax of around ₹ 25 crores and whereas service provider had paid service tax of ₹ 11.33 crores and therefore through the show cause notice dated 20/10/2016 issued to service provider Revenue raised demand of service tax of ₹ 13.66 crores under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 under extended period of limitation for the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16. Further there were other proposals for imposition of penalties. The service provider submitted their reply dated 01/02/2017 to the said show cause notice and informed that it was not correct that during the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16 service provider had paid ₹ 11.33 crores whereas in fact they had paid service tax of ₹ 13.54 crores. They further conte .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rvice provider has filed the present appeal. ST/70543/2017-CU[DB] The said appeal is filed by Revenue aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original through which demand of about ₹ 12 crores was dropped by Original Authority. The contention of the Revenue is that the Original Authority has considered organization such as GNIDA, UPRNNL, KDA and IRCON International Ltd. as governmental authorities and extended the benefit of Sr. No.12 of Notification No.25/2012-ST whereas the said organizations as per the said Notification should have functioned as Municipalities. The contention of Revenue is that At a cursory glance some of their activities like construction of building, roads and bridges etc. may looks similar to some of the functions entrusted to Municipalities under Article 243W, ibid, as listed in the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution but what is material is that unlike Municipalities none of these projects are initiated or conceptualized by them and their construction work in respect of such projects is undertaken only pursuant to the specific award of said work to them by the Government/Entities/Agencies having ownership of the projects in response to the bids submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ted 01/03/2006. She further contended that the demand is barred by limitation as period involved in the present case is April, 2011 to June, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued on 20/10/2016 and that service provider was under the bona fide belief that such services were exempted in terms of Notification No.25/2012 dated 20/06/2012. She further submitted that there was no positive evidence of suppression or misstatement on the part of the service provider as all the information was taken from balance sheet, ledger account and Form 26AS maintained by the service provider. Therefore, as held in the case of Bajarang Lal Shrimal Engineers & Contractors vs. CCE, Jaipur reported at 2017 (51) S.T.R. 273 (Tri.-Del.) the demand is clearly barred by limitation. She further contended that it was held in the case of Bajarang Lal Shrimal Engineers & Contractors that where the demand is based on information appearing in balance sheet, allegation of suppression of such information is not sustainable as balance sheet of the company is a publicly available document. She further submitted that appellant had filed ST-3 returns and was regularly paying service tax to the tune of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||