TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully furnished house to independent buyers for consideration. However, as per profit loss account, the appellant have received sale proceeds of Rs.69,50,000/- whereas the cost of construction is Rs. 65 lakhs. Hence, Court below have held liable to pay service tax on differential value of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Demand of Rs. 64,259/- with respect various civil constructions/maintenance works done for Narmada Gelatine Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant have taken irregular abatement and hence, have short paid the service tax. Accordingly, re-worked out, the taxable value on which service tax is payable, have mentioned in para 11 12 in the order-in-original and worked out differential value of Rs. 4,44,249/- on which tax payable was worked out at Rs. 54,909/- being service tax as short paid. Further, the Adjudicating Authority observed that as per profit loss account, appellant have shown Rs. 42,08,078/- as income from Narmada Gelatine Ltd., Whereas, they have provided invoices of Rs. 41,32,431/- and accordingly on the differential amount Rs. 75,647/- demanded further tax of Rs. 9,350/- for want of invoice, work order, etc. - the appellant have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 6.11.2019, service tax has been demanded as short paid/not paid, based on the Income Tax records like Form 26 AS, Income Tax Return, Profit Loss Account, etc. for the financial year 2014-2015. The proposed demand of Rs.11,67,226/- was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under Section 78. Further, late fee of Rs.21,000/- has been imposed under Rule 7C read with Section 70. Further, penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed under Section 77(2) for not showing correct gross receipt of services in ST-3 Returns. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal set aside the demand of Rs.12,047/- (on Euro Bond) in respect of debt settlement and upheld the balance demand of Rs.11,55,179/- along with equal amount of penalty and also upheld both the penalties under Section 70 and 70 (2). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. Details of demand in dispute is as follows:- M/s S K Builders FY 2014-15 GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT FOR 2014-15 SR. NO. AMOUNT RECD FROM AMT.SHOWN AS INCOME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not involved in any commercial activities. It is further contended that imparting of education is also in the nature of religious-charitable activities and hence, exempted vide Sl.No.13 of Notification No.25/2012-ST. Similarly, construction services provided to Dada Virendrapuri Eye Hospital , which is also provided to a trust registered under Section 12 A/12 AA of the Income Tax Act, and being for charitable purpose- cum-relief to the poor and is also in the nature of religious activities and hence, the activity of WCS is exempt under Sl.No.13 of Notification No.25/2012. The Court below has observed that exemption is granted for the services to a trust etc. registered under Income Tax Act in the nature of construction, etc., which are predominantly used by general public. Further, charitable activity in para 2 (k) of the notification has been defined as activities relating to (i) Public health; (ii) Advancement of religion or spirituality; (iii) Advancement of educational programmes or skill development; (iv) Advancement of any other object of general public utility. 6.2. Hence, it was held that benefit of exemption is not available for the activity of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant had produced sale deed of completed house (s) situated at Saakar Hills. On perusal of the two sale deeds, are of completed/ fully furnished house to independent buyers for consideration. However, as per profit loss account, the appellant have received sale proceeds of Rs.69,50,000/- whereas the cost of construction is Rs. 65 lakhs. Hence, Court below have held liable to pay service tax on differential value of Rs. 4,50,000/-. I find that no service tax is payable on the sale-purchase of property. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, there is no contract for construction of a house property alongwith material. Rather, admittedly, appellant have sold fully constructed and furnished house property. Hence, I hold that no service tax is payable on the same and the demand of Rs. 55,620/- is set aside. 8. So far the ground, relating to demand of Rs. 64,259/- with respect various civil constructions/maintenance works done for Narmada Gelatine Ltd., the works relates to mainly repairs and maintenance and some of the work also relates to new construction work. The appellant had paid the service tax after availing abatement at 60% with respect to new construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
