TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Milan Nagar, Lane: 'F', P.O. C.R. Building, Dibrugarh, wherein the Ld. Principal Commissioner has confirmed the Service Tax demand to the tune of Rs. 6,18,49,097/- along with interest and equivalent amount of tax as penalty. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of GRRB Associates (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") is a registered contractor under the Border Roads Organization (in short "BRO"). During the period October 2014 to June 2017, the appellant rendered services to BRO by way of construction of roads and bridges for the use of public. The appellant considered these services are exempted from payment of service tax in terms of Sl. No. 13(a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to BRO - The same does not entail provision of any services and would be construed as trading of goods covered by negative list of services under clause (e) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 . b) Provision of services to BRO by way of construction of roads and bridges for the use of public- Exempted from payment of service tax in terms of Sl. No. 13(a) of Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 - ST dated 20-06-2012 ("Notification No. 25") (c) Provision of services as a sub-contractor for construction of roads, under an agreement on behalf of M/s. Navayuga Engineering Company Limited ("NECL") and M/s. Bharati Infra Projects Limited (BIPL) - Exempted from payment of service tax in terms of Sl. No. 29(h) Notification No. 25 read with Sl. No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Form 26AS, work order/contract/agreement and service tax returns were sought from the Appellant. The Appellant vide its letter dated 14-12-2016 duly submitted all the details. No proceedings were initiated thereafter. The Department was completely aware of the activities undertaken by the Appellant in 2016 itself and in spite thereof no efforts were taken by the revenue to issue show cause notice in time. Also given that the entire demand is based on Form 26AS received from the Income Tax Department, there can be no allegation of suppression and the revenue could have sought the same information within the normal period of limitation. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 25 read with Sl. No. 13(a) of Exemption Notification No. 25. Also the goods supplied by the appellant to BPO can be considered as trading of goods covered by negative list of services under clause (e) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, we observe that no service tax is payable by the appellant on the above said services rendered to BPO. Hence, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. 7. We also observe that the department has sought copies of Income Tax returns, balance sheet, bank statement, Form 26AS, work order/contract/agreement and service tax returns from the appellant vide letter dated 12.08.2016. The Appellant vide its letter dated 14-12-2016 duly submitted all the details. No pr....