Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (5) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Work orders, etc. but they neither paid any service tax nor filed the statutory returns with the department. Revenue conducted investigation in the matter and also recorded the statements of Shri Kantibhai Rajabhai Ukani, Proprietor of the company on 25.06.2014. In the statements, the proprietor admitted to have suppressed his taxable value, non-filing of ST-3 returns, not taking the service tax registration at the appropriate time and non-payment of the Service Tax. This statement has never been retracted by the Appellant. 1.1 He also explained to the officers the nature of services performed by him and the corresponding income shown in the books of accounts. He stated to have provided some services directly to Surat Municipal Corporati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of complex service. They also pleaded that the issue has been decided in several cases that M/s. GSPHCL are a government organization and therefore services rendered to them are exempt from service tax. Their another plea is that the matter is Revenue neutral as the service tax paid by them as sub-contractor would have been eligible as Cenvat credit to their main contractor. They also mentioned that the demand of service tax has been incorrectly calculated by the department. Accordingly, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order. 2.1 During hearing, learned Advocate highlighted relevant Sections of the Finance Act, 1994 and emphasized on following case laws:- * DH Patel Vs CCE, Surat 2023 (4) TMI -920 CESTAT The issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the show cause notice but no reason has been given in the impugned order as to why it was not feasible or practicable for the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the show cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority has to record reasons in the order adjudicating the show cause notice and not leave it to the department to speculate why the Adjudicating Authority could not adhere to the time limit provided to it under a Statute to adjudicate the show cause notice. The impugned order would have to be set aside only for the reason that the adjudication was not completed within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act. * Coromandel Infotech India Pvt. Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he rival submissions and gone through the facts of the case. The period of dispute in the case is from 2009-10 to 2013-14(up to December, 2013) which involves both pre and post negative list regime. From the facts, it comes out that the appellant had provided the following services:- a) Construction of Police housing b) Heritage development (Dandi) c) Lake development at Saputara d) Health and sanitation related construction e) Irrigation/Canal related work f) Compound walls for building/school owned by Surat Municipal Corporation g) School construction h) Construction of factory unit 4.2 For the services at Sr. No. a), b) and c), the appellant was sub-contractor of M/s. D H Patel who got work contract from M/s GSPHCL and M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce Tax, New Delhi Vs. Melange Developers Private Ltd.- 2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri.-LB) wherein it has been clearly observed that the sub-contractor will be required to discharge service tax liability even if the main contractor has discharged liability on the work assigned to the sub-contractor. Similar finding was given by the CESTAT, Delhi in CCE, Delhi East Vs. M/s. Navnirman Construction Company - (2025) 25 Centax 415 (Tri.-Delhi) and Ahmedabad Tribunal in Pramukh Earth Movers case. 4.4 We find that in the case of M/s. D H Patel vs. CCE & ST Surat-I, this Tribunal vide order dated 10.04.2023, in para 4 has clearly brought out that M/s. GSPHCL is 100% owned by Government of Gujrat under Ministry of Home Affairs and therefore, the same was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates