TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the waterproofing works qualified for exemption as services relating to original works pertaining to a single residential unit; (ii) Whether waterproofing undertaken for the first time on an existing structure could qualify as original works; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for a demand founded on Form 26AS data against a registered assessee.
Issue (i): Whether the waterproofing works qualified for exemption as services relating to original works pertaining to a single residential unit.
Analysis: The exemption required proof that the works pertained to single residential units. The material produced did not clearly establish that the works were undertaken for such units.
Conclusion: The claim for full exemption was not allowed.
Issue (ii): Whether waterproofing undertaken for the first time on an existing structure could qualify as original works.
Analysis: Original works include new construction as well as work on abandoned or damaged existing structures required to make them workable. Waterproofing undertaken for the first time to address seepage in an existing building could therefore fall within original works; the distinction based solely on whether the premises were newly constructed was erroneous.
Conclusion: Waterproofing carried out for the first time on an existing damaged structure can qualify as original works, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for a demand founded on Form 26AS data against a registered assessee.
Analysis: The assessee had been registered since 2011, while the Department raised no query regarding non-payment or non-filing of returns for about ten years. The notice treated the entire Form 26AS receipts as taxable consideration without first verifying the nature of the works or the assessee's status. The Revenue produced no material establishing collection of service tax or willful suppression. A demand based solely on income-tax data, without proper verification or corroborative evidence of taxable services, could not justify invocation of the extended limitation period.
Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unsustainable and the confirmed demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand could not survive because it was raised beyond the permissible limitation period without proof of willful suppression.
Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS or income-tax data where the Revenue has not undertaken proper verification or established willful suppression by a registered assessee.
TaxTMI 
