TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether service tax credit on construction services used in relation to the assessee's business was admissible for the period prior to 1.4.2011; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the impugned order could be sustained when the assessee had disclosed the availment in statutory records and the confirmation went beyond the show cause notice.
Issue (i): Whether service tax credit on construction services used in relation to the assessee's business was admissible for the period prior to 1.4.2011.
Analysis: The credit related to the year 2007, when the definition of input services was still wide enough to cover services used in relation to business activities. The exclusion of construction services came only with the amendment effective from 1.4.2011. On the facts found, the appellant had shown the relevant transactions in the statutory records and the services were connected with the business premises and activities.
Conclusion: The credit was admissible and the objection on merits failed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the impugned order could be sustained when the assessee had disclosed the availment in statutory records and the confirmation went beyond the show cause notice.
Analysis: The assessee had reflected the credit in RG-23A, TR-6 challans and ER-1 returns, so there was no suppression or wilful misstatement to justify invocation of the extended period. The order-in-appeal also introduced a ground different from the allegation in the show cause notice, namely non- nexus with manufacture, which could not validly sustain the demand. In these circumstances, the demand was time barred and the impugned order was legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the impugned order could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand and penalty-related adverse findings were set aside with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For the period prior to 1.4.2011, construction-related services could qualify as input services when used in relation to business, and the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression of facts duly reflected in statutory records.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
