Factual verification for service tax demands on works contracts, transport services, and royalty before final liability is determined.

Service tax liability on works contract, goods transport agency services, and royalty required fresh factual verification before final determination. The Tribunal noted that the Form 26AS-based demand for works contract services could not be sustained without correlating the entries with underlying work orders, contracts, and the claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the transport demand required examination of whether the freight related to railways or private vendors and whether consignment notes were issued. On royalty, the Tribunal required verification of whether rights to use natural resources had been assigned before 01.04.2016. The matter was remanded with all issues kept open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the service tax demand on works contract services was sustainable without correlating Form 26AS with the underlying work orders and exemption claim under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) whether the demand on goods transport agency services was sustainable on the facts relating to railway freight, private vendor freight charges, and issuance of consignment notes; and (iii) whether the royalty demand was sustainable in view of the plea that the rights to use natural resources were assigned before 01.04.2016.

Analysis: The demand had been raised on the basis of Form 26AS, while the appellant claimed exemption for specified works contracts and also asserted that certain contracts were executed prior to 01.04.2015. The Tribunal held that the factual claim required verification by correlating the Form 26AS entries with the work orders and contracts. On the transportation issue, the Tribunal found that the nature of freight payment, the role of railways or private vendors, and the existence of any consignment note had to be examined at the adjudication stage. On royalty, the Tribunal noted that the issue was stated to be covered by the earlier Tribunal decision relied upon, but the factual question whether the rights were granted before 01.04.2016 still needed verification.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh verification of the works contract, transportation, and royalty issues, with all issues kept open.

---