9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 'Works Contract Service' defined under Section 65(39a) and 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) and made taxable under Section 65(105) (zzd) and 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act. During the course of audit of the records, it was noticed that the appellant had opted to pay service tax @4.12% on the services of 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' rendered to Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur (JVVNL) opting for composition scheme under 'Works Contract Service'. It was further observed that the cost of materials was not taken into account for payment of the service tax, which is primary condition of works contract. Show cause notice dated 3.6.2013 was issued to the appellant as they had deposited service tax @4.12% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of the total value of demand i.e. Rs.5,46,48,640/- and for the remaining value of Rs.50,38,422/- pertaining to the month of Jan. 2010, the appellant had voluntarily paid vide challan dated 30.01.2012. 5. I am not convinced with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and the same needs to be rejected. In view of the reasoning noted by the Adjudicating Authority that there is a standard practice that the Departmental Audit is conducted for a specified period, which has been clearly mentioned in IAR as April, 2006 to September, 2009 in Col.-9 in Part-I and the appellant has not shown anything that the period specified was extended by the proper officer, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that IAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss amount of taxable service shown as Rs.5,46,48,640/-. Even after issuance of the audit para and before being show caused, the jurisdictional Superintendent, Service Tax Range-I, Jaipur repeatedly asked them to produce requisite information/documents vide his letters dated 18.05.2011, 13.06.2011, 25.04.2022, 27.04.2012 and 08.01.2013. Rather than supplying documents/evidences to prove that they have fulfilled the conditions for availing composition scheme under the Works Contract Services, they kept on putting up some argument or the other. Therefore, it is a clear case where the assessee have failed to produce the documents required to verify that the sale tax/VAT had been paid on the goods/material involved in execution of the work cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the action for raising the demand for service tax for the subsequent period i.e. October, 2009 to Jan. 2010 should have been taken within the normal period of 18 months, as per Section 73(1) of the Act. Whereas the show cause notice dated 03.06.2013 has been issued after 3 years on the basis of subsequent Audit Report No.1192/2010 dated 03.05.2011. From the records of the case, I find that the ST-3 Returns were filed by the appellant on 24.04.2010 for the period October, 2009 to March, 2010 and the Audit Report No.1192/2010 was dispatched to them on 3.5.2011. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Range Officer sent letters dated 18.05.2011, 13.06.2011, 25.04.2012, 27.04.2012 and 08.01.2013 calling upon them to submit information and documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
