9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp;and Rs.17,01,72,959/-, respectively. Further scrutiny of ST-3 Returns revealed that the said returns were not filed for the period from October, 2015 to March, 2017. Difference in the value of service declared in ST-3 returns and Form 26AS was noticed to the tune of Rs.7,35,97,122/- and Rs.17,01,72,959/- for the F.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. It was further found that the Appellant had not paid service tax on the aforesaid differential value of services. The amount of Service Tax as payable by the Appellant on the differential amount for the F.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 was worked out to be Rs.1,06,71,583/- and Rs.2,55,25,944/- respectively. Show Cause Notice SCN dated 26.3.2021 was issued to the Appellant by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Noida to demand Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,61,97,527/- (Rs.1,06,71,583/- for F.Y. 2015-16 and Rs.2,55,25,944/- for F.Y. 2016-17 under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest and equal penalty. Penalty was also proposed under the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The Appellant agitated against the allegation leveled against him and contented that appropriate Service Tax was alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drainage system in connection with sewerage treatment or disposal pertaining to Supreme Court, Additional Office Complex, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. The award was for Rs.2,82,40,000/-. During F.Y. 2016-17, the Appellant provided services in terms of said contract for an amount of Rs.36,36,586/-. The Service Tax involved on such value of services was worked out to be Rs.2,18,195/-. The said service was exempt from Service Tax in terms of clause (e) of Sl. No.12 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012. Thus, the demand of Rs.2,18,195/- is liable to be dropped. 7. It was also submitted that the amount received during 2015-16 from service recipients namely M/s Krishna Build Estate P. Ltd., was considered as receipt towards renting services of machine while it was towards Works Contract Service as is evident from copy of the contract, invoice, ledger account submitted by the Appellant. He contended that merely because the receipts from said service recipient were shown in Form 26AS under Section 194 (1)(a) of Income Tax Act, it cannot be considered as income from Renting of Machine Service. The Ld. Consultant relied upon the following decisions and argued that the service tax dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown in Form 26AS. The Adjudicating Authority has shown his disagreement with the above calculation on the ground that the Appellant had provided Renting of Machinery Services to M/s Krishna Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of receipts shown under Section 194 I(a) in Form 26AS. It is a trite law that no demand of Service Tax can be made on the basis of entries shown in Form 26AS. In the case of Jain Housing & Construction Ltd. [2023 10 Centax 170 (T)] which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as [2023(10) Centax 171 (SC)], it has been held that liability of Service Tax cannot be fastened on the basis of entries and figures of Form 26AS, Income Tax statement. We find that the Appellant has produced evidences like, invoice, ledger etc. to prove that services provided to M/s Krishna Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. would qualify under the category of Works Contract, and not under the category of Renting of Machine. We, therefore find that the finding of the Adjudicating authority to treat the services provided to M/s Krishna Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. in the category of Renting of Machinery is not maintainable. Moreover, under Section 194 I(A) of Income Tax Act, payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewerage treatment or disposal pertaining to Supreme Court, Additional Office Complex, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. The award was for Rs.2,82,40,000/-. During F.Y. 2016-17, the Appellant provided services in terms of said contract for an amount of Rs.36,36,586/-. The Service Tax involved on such value of services was worked out to be Rs.2,18,195/-. The said service was exempt from Service Tax in terms of clause (e) of Sl. No.12 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012. As per clause (h) of Sl.No.29 of the said Notification, sub-contractor of Works Contract was also exempt from Service Tax if main contractor was exempt from Service Tax. Thus, the demand of Rs.2,18,195/- is liable to be dropped. The Service Tax payable during 2016-17 is Rs.1,09,50,292/- (Rs.1,11,68,487/- Rs.2,18,195/-). 17. The Appellant has deposited Rs.66,02,978/- in cash and Rs.10,41,790/- by adjusting through Cenvat during F.Y. 2015-16 and Rs.30,92,779/- in cash and Rs.36,27,094/- by adjusting through Cenvat for the F.Y. 2016-17. Total Service Tax deposited was Rs.1,43,64,641/- before issuance of the SCN. The Cenvat credit claimed by the Appellant for the period from October, 2015 to March, 2017 was rejected b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
