Composite works contract treatment supports service tax abatement, while absence of intent to evade defeats extended limitation and penalties.

A composite contract supported by contract documents, the recipient's certificate and deduction of works contract tax TDS under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 was treated as a works contract for service tax purposes, making the 67% abatement admissible where VAT or sales tax treatment had already applied. The extended limitation period could not be invoked because the department failed to prove any intent to evade tax, and payment of tax with interest after the audit objection negatived suppression. For the same reason, penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to the 67% abatement on the ground that the activity was a composite works contract; (ii) whether the demand for the earlier period was barred by limitation; (iii) whether penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to the 67% abatement on the ground that the activity was a composite works contract.

Analysis: The contract documents, the recipient's certificate, and the deduction of works contract tax TDS under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 showed that the activity involved supply of goods and services in a composite contract. The Board's circular clarified that contracts treated as works contracts for VAT or sales tax purposes are to be treated similarly for service tax purposes. On that basis, the denial of abatement was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee, and the abatement benefit was held admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the earlier period was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The department failed to establish any intent to evade payment of service tax, which was necessary to invoke the extended period. The record indicated that tax was paid with interest after the audit objection, which negatived suppression or fraudulent intent for the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period was held to be time barred, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the tax liability was discharged after the audit objection and there was no established intention to evade, the statutory basis for penalty did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalties were held not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite contract treated as works contract for VAT or sales tax purposes must be treated similarly for service tax, and in the absence of intent to evade, the extended limitation period and consequential penalties cannot be sustained.

---