TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account for the relevant period alongwith details of service tax paid, to ascertain the service tax liability. In response by letter dated 17.04.2018 the aforementioned details were filed. It appeared to Revenue from the details of service tax paid by the appellant, that it is not clear for which period of service tax/returns the tax challans have been deposited. Again a letter was issued to the appellant on 18.04.2018 by hand requesting for - yearwise applicable rate of duty, duty payment and other relevant information. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant have submitted ST-3 returns only for the period April, 2015 to September, 2015 (filed on 08.04.2018) and the other three half yearly returns were not found on the electronic record, and it appeared such returns have not been filed. 4. From the comparison of figures of turnover as per profit and loss account and as per Form-26AS, it was found that the turnover as per Form-26AS is lesser. Therefore, the Revenue adopted the turnover as per profit and loss account for the purpose of calculation of service tax liability. Further, it appeared to Revenue that in absence of work order, the nature of work contract service cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany in support of their claim/ balance sheet. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in adjudication the Ld. Commissioner has examined the copies of agreements with Railways and LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE, to the appellant. On examination, the Ld. Commissioner has found that the maintenance services and original works undertaken by the appellant for Railways were well covered in the exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 (Sl. No. 14). Accordingly, it was held that the amount received by the appellant from Railways was not chargeable to service tax. However, the exemption was allowed for the taxable value of Rs. 1,45,70,105/- for the year 2015-16 and for Rs. 1,96,57,200/- for the year 2016-17, as was reflected in the Form 26AS for the relevant years, while the actual amount received or billed from railways during these years as per account books was Rs. 1,50,98,756/- for the year 2015-16 and Rs. 1,96,57,200/- for the year 2016-17. Thus, exemption on the value of Rs. 5,22,651/- involving service tax for Rs. 75,784/- has not been allowed to the appellant by the Ld. Commissioner in respect of the services provided to Railways. 7.1 Learned Counsel for the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adjudicating Authority under the scheme of adjudication, in the provisions of service tax. Further, reliance has been placed on the provision of Income Tax, is wild and erroneous, and such provisions are not attracted in the adjudication for service tax and accordingly he prays for allowing this ground also. 11. Having considered the rival contentions on this issue, we hold that there is no such assumption and presumption available to the Adjudicating Authority for rejection of sales turnover. Even a best judgment assumption has to be based on documents and information on record. We further find after going through the provisions of Section 40A(3A) and (4), it has been provided - where an allowance has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of any liability incurred by the assessee for any expenditure, and subsequently during any previous year the assessee makes payment in respect thereof, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, the payment so made shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income tax as income of the subsequent year, if the payment or aggregate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Value) Rules, 2006. The appellant has also submitted some of the sample invoices issued to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) during the year 2015-16, which evidently proves that the appellant has provided works contract service in nature of laying underground cable lines for BSNL. The appellant also submits that they have provided works contract services for Rs. 7,22,51,283/- during 2015-16 and for Rs. 7,28,15,722/- during 2016-17, respectively. 16. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the learned Commissioner have erred in not allowing the abatement, though he have admitted use of materials. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to abatement. We also hold that the Commissioner has erred in assuming that the appellant may have taken cenvat credit of duty or cess paid on any inputs. Such assumption for assessment is not available. Accordingly, this ground is allowed and tax liability has to be determined after allowing abatement at the prescribed rate. 17. Appellant further contends that while computing the demand of service tax on the work of laying of cables, the Ld. Commissioner has miserably failed to acknowledge that the said activity is covered....