9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaken and/or rendered services to telecommunication companies viz. Tata Teleservices Ltd., ATC Telecom Pvt.Ltd., ATC Infrastructure Services Pvt.Ltd. and Idea Cellular Infrastructure Ltd. in relation to erection, commissioning and installation, completion fitting-out, repair, maintenance services to telecommunication towers of those companies, which also incudes execution of Civil Construction Work. On the basis of the information received from the Income Tax Department in the form of Form-26AS, it was found that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.1,19,67,288/- during the period from 2012-13 to 2016- 17 on which TDS is deducted by the service recipient, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demanding service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary and contrary to the documents. It is the submission that during the period from April 2017 to June 2017, the receipt amount was only Rs.3,00,904/- and after applying the Valuation Rules and computation under Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the liability would come to only Rs.22,568/- in place of Rs.7,41,383/- which has been calculated hypothetically. 5. It is also submitted that the demand is barred by limitation as for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, the show cause notice has been issued on 23.04.2018, which is beyond the normal period of limitation. The appellant was submitting the returns and paying service tax. Therefore, the differential demand is hypothetically demanded and is contrary to the statutory provisions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rte.
11. Moreover, the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation and some of the demand pertains to beyond five years and in this case, the demand has to be calculated in terms of Valuation Rules, 2006. The issue in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or not?
12. In that circumstances, we hold that extended period of limitation is not invocable. Moreover, on the basis of Form-26AS, no demand is sustainable against the appellant.
13. In that circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
( Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2023. ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
