TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown under Service Tax heading has to be read as TDS on Sales Tax (VAT). Such letters have been issued by other Government departments also. The impugned order does not seem to have considered all these aspects. It is also to be borne in mind that in case of works contract services rendered to Government authorities, the amount is paid to the contractor on the basis of work completion as recorded in the Measurement Book (M-book) which is maintained by the departments. The appellant could not obtain such documents due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. They have now produced filed miscellaneous application, and produced documents. The appellant has to be given an opportunity to put their defence on the basis of the documents furnished by them. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - MRS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S. Durairaj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, ADC (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant had provided taxable services under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were of the opinion that the service provided to Government would not attract service tax and hence had not taken registration under the service tax regime; iv. They have not collected service tax for the services provided to the PWD/ and other Government Departments and local bodies; They assured to take steps to collect the applicable service tax; v. They have only provided service in respect of original construction works and have not provided any repair and maintenance works; vi. They have paid Value Added Tax under TN VAT Act after adjusting input tax that was paid on the Inputs used for execution of projects; The value of contract executed by them includes materials / goods value and service value could not be vivisected. vii. The service tax due would be paid after arriving at the same. 1.2 The appellant submitted copy of Balance sheet, profit loss statements for the Annual Year 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Form 26A statements for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the list of receipts of the contract amounts from the Government Departments. 1.3 On scrutiny and analysis of documents and statements it was seen that the appellant has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. However, it is submitted that in the instant case, the adjudicating authority had confirmed the tax liability of Rs.4,84,79,036/- on the value of Rs 32,94,21,693/-, which is inclusive of value of goods for the reason that the appellants had not furnished the relevant details. The value of goods could have been obtained and quantified under Rule 2A based on the profit and loss account (relied upon document), where the value of goods is available. Appellant submitted certain details on 2.8.2019 and the SCN was issued only on 24.12 2020. During the interim period, the Adjudicating Authority could have determined the value of goods consumed in WCS based on the profit and loss account under Rule 2A by appointing a Cost Accountant under Section 72A. Instead, the value was determined without considering Rule 2A. Therefore, value has been determined in excess of jurisdiction. In the case of CC and CE ST Vs M/s Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd - 2023 (5) TMI 138 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the valuation for works contract services must be under Rule 2A and 100% value cannot be adopted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was an exemption under notification 25/2012-ST SI No:12 (a, b and c)). It was withdrawn with effect from 1.4.2015 vide notification 6/2015-ST dated 1.3.2015. The exemption was restored with effect from 1.3.2016 by notification 9/2016-ST dated 1.3 2016 Sl. No :12A (a, b c)] and retrospective exemption was dextended vide Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 1.4.2015 to 29.2.2016. This exemption was denied on the grounds that the condition to avail the exemption is not satisfied. The condition reads as under a contract which had been entered into prior to the 1st March, 2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, had been paid prior to such date . Appellants' claim is that the exemption is still available since the condition is applicable only to clause (c) because: i Clauses (a) and (b) are grouped together and clause (c) is separated by the use of semi colon in Section 102 and by semi colon (3) and 'or' at the end of clause (b) in Sl.No:12A of notification 25/2012-ST. ii The semi colon (;) and or is used to denote disjunctive context whereby sub-clauses (a) and (b) are distinct from (cj: this indicates that the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding is based on the reports of various Heads of Government Departments as mentioned in the previous para. Now, the Appellants are ready to furnish the reports from the same authorities, wherein they have stated that service tax was not collected by the appellant and that they have wrongly mentioned it as Service Tax instead of Sales Tax. 4.10 The Ld. counsel for the appellant thus prayed that the matter may be remanded, affording an opportunity to the appellant to furnish documents to clarify the demand of Service Tax raised in their case. 5.1 Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, Ld. Authorized Representative, appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted by him that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to furnish evidence and also to reply to the Show Cause Notice and therefore, the documents produced belatedly cannot be accepted or relied. 5.2 He has also argued that the demand has been quantified on the basis of documents submitted by the appellant and also documents recovered from various Government departments. The documents collected from the Government departments revealed that the appellant had collected Service Tax and had not deposited the same before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of the order No. referred at St No.7 requesting this department to sanction the Service Tax amount to be paid for the above mentioned work. In the order copy at page 6 of 44. Sl. No.2, date of Agreement is mentioned 27.03.2015 under the heading Nature of work. Agreement No. date But as per this office records the date of Agreement is 25.02 2015 as also mentioned in the details of payment furnished to DGGI Coimbatore in prescribed formal vide this office Letter No.623/ A2/ 2019/ Dated 10.09 2019 Undar para 4.6 of the order it is mentioned that the amount was paid to service provider including TDS and Service Tax by referring this office letter dated 10.09.2019 In this regard it is to be mentioned here that the details furnished to DGGL Coimbatore by this office vide this office letter dated 10 09 2019 in which amount of Sales Tax (VAT) TDS (Rs 3.484/-) erroneously shown under Service Tax amount as explained above The amount shown under Service Tax heading in the details furnished by this office may kindly be read as TDS on Sales Tax (VAT). As the details furnished by this office to DGGL Coimbatore for the amount paid to the contractor was related to the contract entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
