Reverse-charge treatment for PWD works contracts limits provider tax liability, while non-disclosure supports extended limitation and consequential penalties.

Works contract services supplied to the PWD fall within the reverse-charge allocation under Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., requiring the service provider to bear only 50% of the service tax liability. The tax demand must therefore be recomputed after granting that benefit. Extended limitation may nevertheless be invoked where the provider knew the services were taxable but did not pay tax, obtain registration, file prescribed returns, or disclose the liability to the department. Interest and penalty remain leviable on the recomputed tax liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge only 50% of the service tax under Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 for taxable works contract services supplied to the PWD; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of service tax.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge only 50% of the service tax under Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 for taxable works contract services supplied to the PWD.

Analysis: The taxable receipts concerned works contract services admittedly liable to service tax. The precedent applied recognised that works contract services supplied to the PWD qualify for the reverse-charge allocation under Serial No. 9 of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., under which the service provider bears 50% of the tax liability.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. and is liable for only 50% of the service tax on the relevant taxable works contract services, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of service tax.

Analysis: The appellant was aware of the taxability of the relevant services but neither paid the tax nor informed the departmental authorities, and had not obtained registration or filed the prescribed returns. The precedent relied upon also sustained invocation of the extended period in comparable circumstances; the decisions cited by the appellant were distinguishable.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation is valid, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxable demand must be recomputed after extending the reverse-charge benefit, while interest and penalty remain leviable on the recomputed liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxable works contract services are provided to the PWD in circumstances covered by Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., the provider is liable for only its 50% reverse-charge share; non-payment and non-disclosure despite knowledge of taxability justify the extended limitation period.

---