9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 31,19,937/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77(1)(a) and Rs. 10,000/- under section 77(2) and penalty of Rs. 31,19,937/-under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants during the period from 16.06.2009 to 13.03.2012 were engaged in providing "Construction of Residential Complex service services to various builders and developers, Jodhpur. Intelligence was received that the appellant was not paying service tax on the taxable services provided by them. During the course of investigations, Shri Jitendra Panwar appeared before the Superintenden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submitted that the appellant was providing services to M/s Ramdev Devlopers, Manav Developers and various Developers as a contractor of construction of buildings and they have received consideration Rs. 3,02,90,638/- as per then Bank statement for the years 2009-10 to 2011-12 on which the service tax liability comes to Rs. 31,19,937/- (including cess) which was not paid. The appellant had merely deposited service tax of Rs. 1,91,889/-. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant had been engaged in construction work of various developers and builders by undertaking the work on Labour Rate Contract basis as is evident from the copy of agreement between the appellant and M/s Manav Developers and the statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices to certain developers based in Jodhpur but had not taken service tax registration and not paid service tax. In his statement dated 7.10.2011, Sh Jitendra Panwar, Proprietor claimed that they were undertaking labour rate contract with M/s Manav Developers since 2011. He submitted that they had taken service tax registration on 05.10.2011. He also submitted that no bank account was opened by them and they did not have IT returns and Balance Sheet was the past five years. However, we note that Shri Magraj Panwar in his statement dated 19.3.2012 claimed to be the Proprietor, and stated that he had provided construction work of building services by employing labour during the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. Further investigations with the Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
