9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Rules. 2. Brief facts are that the respondent is engaged in Works Contract and is registered with the Service Tax Department since 2008. They had filed their returns and paid the service tax for the financial year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. However, Returns (ST-3) were pending for the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 and also the tax was not deposited. In view of the 'Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013' (VCES), the respondent filed an application declaring service tax dues at Rs. 16,03,551/- for the period 2010-2011 to 2nd December, 2012 (2012-13) and accordingly, paid the tax, which is as follows:- Table S.No. Period Gross Receipt Taxable @of Service Tax plus Cess Service Tax Ed.Cess H.S. Ed.Cess Total Tax Amt. Deposited & challan No.(CIN NO.) & date 1. 2010-2011 1,2378340 4.12% 513301 3266 1633 518200 00001 dt.25.09.14 00002 dt.25.09.14 00003 dt.25.09.14 00001 dt.30.12.13, 00001dt.15.10.14 and interest Rs. 41,506 deposited vide challan no.00001 dt.15.10.14. 2. 2011-2012 20214343 4.12% 808574 16171 8086 832831 3. 2012-2013 5103562 4.944% 244971 4899 2450 252320 Total &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turns in terms of Rule 7 C of Service Tax Rules. The respondent contested the show cause notice and demonstrated that they have filed the returns for the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and have paid the admitted tax. The respondent further demonstrated that they have also done road construction work, which is fully exempt. After deducting the turnover towards road construction, they have declared the balance turnover as taxable turnover and have paid the service tax under the Composition Scheme. The respondent further contended that there is no case of non-compliance on their part, and they have made available the details of their financial accounts i.e. Form AS-26, relevant work orders to the Department. It was contended that the respondent was entitled to either claim abatement for the material components or pay tax on the gross amount under the Composition Scheme, on the taxable turnover. Accordingly, they have rightly calculated and paid the tax, and there is no error in their declaration under VCES. It was also contended that they maintained regular books of accounts in the normal course of business, which are audited by the Chartered Accountant under the Companies Act as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable interest. Thus, the respondent has complied with the payment procedure under VCE scheme. The ld. Commissioner verified and calculated the tax liability for each financial year from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012, which was the subject matter of the show cause. For the period 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 7. The finding recorded is that the respondent/assessee has included the cost of materials received free of cost in the taxable turnover. It was declared in the ST-3 Returns. However, due to calculation error, short payment was worked out to Rs. 3,344/- only. 8. During 2009-2010, the service tax payable was worked out to Rs. 9,27,409/- whereas as per Return, the respondent has paid tax of Rs. 7,93,874/-. Thus, the short payment worked out at Rs. 1,33,535/-. It was found that the respondent has received free of cost materials for Rs. 6,46,960/-, which is also to be taken into consideration for charging service tax. Further, it is observed that as regards the free of cost materials, the same has been considered by the respondent/assessee in the declaration filed for the year 2011-2012, and the said amount is not includible again and accordingly, the tax liability declared in the decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that ld. Commissioner has erred in holding that the declaration under VCES was not substantially false and further urged that, agreeing with the short paid service tax as calculated by the ld. Commissioner at Rs. 1,53,100/-, it is contended that the declaration is substantially false under VCES, which is to be rejected. Further, the respondent was required to declare the free of cost supplied materials, which was only declared later on by them. As such, the respondent has short declared the service tax liability of Rs. 6 lakhs (approx.). 14. The respondent has also filed cross objections, which have been registered and are considered. The respondent/assessee has given bifurcation of demand as per order-in-original, which is as follows:- Table Year Amount of Service Tax Remarks 2008-2009 to 2010-11 Rs. 153,100/- Amount confirmed in OIO passed by Commr. 2012-13 Rs. 3,69,498/- Alleged service tax on free supplies of materials by service recipient 2013-14 Rs. 1,09,846/- Alleged service tax on free supplies of material by service recipient. Total Rs. 6,32,444/- The alleged liability of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
