2025 (3) TMI 571 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax exemption for pre-2015 government construction contracts upheld despite post-exemption payment receipts

M/s. Majumdar Furniture Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Appeal-II, Commissionerate, Kolkata

M/s. Majumdar Furniture Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Appeal-II, Commissionerate, Kolkata - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:1. Whether the appellant, M/s. Majumdar Furniture, is entitled to exemption from service tax for government construction contracts executed between 2016-17 to 2017-18, given the changes in exemption notifications.2. Whether the demand for service tax based on the income reflected in Form 26AS and Income Tax Returns is legally sustainable without corroborative evidence linking the income to taxable services.3. Whether the computation of service tax liability was correctly assessed for the period in question.4. Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax is justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Exemption from Service TaxThe appellant argued that their services to the Military Engineering Services (MES) were exempt under Entry No. 12(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. However, this exemption was withdrawn by Notification No. 6/2015-ST, effective from 01.03.2015. The exemption was partially restored with conditions by Notification No. 9/2016-ST, inserting Entry No. 12A, which required contracts to be entered into before 01.03.2015.The Tribunal noted that the appellant entered into contracts after 01.03.2015, and thus, the exemption under Entry 12 was not applicable. However, they found that the adjudicating authority failed to allow exemptions for contracts entered before this date, which is not legally sustainable.2. Basis of Service Tax DemandThe demand was based on discrepancies between values in Form 26AS and the appellant's service tax returns. The Tribunal emphasized that demands cannot be confirmed solely on data from Income Tax Returns/26AS without establishing that the amounts relate to taxable services. They cited precedents, including M/s Tushar Transport and M/s Piyush Sharma, affirming that corroborative evidence is necessary to substantiate such demands.3. Computation of Service Tax LiabilityThe Tribunal found errors in the computation of service tax liability, as the adjudicating authority considered the entire amount received during April 2017 to March 2018 as taxable, whereas service tax was applicable only for April to June 2017. Furthermore, the service tax rate was incorrectly applied to the entire contract value instead of 40% for original works, leading to an inflated demand.4. Extended Period of LimitationThe Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act requires a finding of willful misstatement or suppression by the assessee. In this case, the Show Cause Notice was based on information from the appellant's returns, not new discoveries by the department. Citing judgments from the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal concluded that invoking the extended period was unjustified, rendering the demand unsustainable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal set aside the service tax demands, interest, and penalties on the grounds of limitation, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence when relying on Income Tax data for service tax demands. They reiterated that exemptions should be correctly applied based on contract dates and that errors in computation and rate application must be rectified.The Tribunal's decision underscores the principle that tax demands must be based on clear, corroborated evidence and within the statutory limitation period, ensuring fairness in tax administration.