2014 (5) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur. The order confirms a cumulative service tax liability of Rs. 1,68,09,599/- pursuant to two show cause notices dated 21/10/2010 and 17/10/2011, covering the periods 01/04/2005 to 31/03/2010 and 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011, respectively. 2. Proceedings were initiated on assumption by Revenue that the petitioner provided 'construction of residential complex' and 'commercial or industrial construction' services to several bodies/organizations; had however short-remitted service tax due, by disclosing only part of the gross consideration received; failed to disclose the total consideration received for taxable services provided to all organizations; and thus evaded service tax, by willfully suppressing f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ither disclosed the consideration received from such recipients nor remitted service tax on the consideration referable to services rendered to these bodies. In respect of services provided to Sat Bio Tech India Ltd. and GR Home Developer, the petitioner contended before the Adjudicating Authority and reiterates before us that no consideration was in fact received from these bodies during the period under consideration, but receivables on this account were enumerated in its balance sheets since the petitioner was following the accrual basis of accounting. Therefore, consideration though disclosed in the balance sheet was not taken into consideration for remittance of Service Tax. In respect of construction of complex services alleged to hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Marvel Projects Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 603 (Tri.  Chennai) and the absence of any attribution in the show cause notice or in the impugned adjudication order that constructions by the petitioner were in relation to construction of residential complex service, since more than 12 residential units were constructed and since there is no finding recorded that the residential units were not for the personal use of the recipient in terms of the statutory definition, in particular the explanation set out in Section 65 (91a) of the Act, we see a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. 8. In so far as construction services provided by the petitioner in respect of establishment or maintenance of educat....