TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant had received an amount of Rs.10,25,639/- under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the Financial Year 2014-15. On being enquired appellant provided Balance Sheets, ITR/26AS, work orders/contracts etc. After scrutinizing the same, department formed an opinion that the appellant has provided taxable services against consideration whereupon TDS has also been deducted by the service receivers, hence the services were taxable. These are otherwise not mentioned in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 nor are exempted under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012. Thus, appellant was observed to be liable to pay service tax vide Show Cause Notice No. 603 dated 26.06.2020, an amount of Rs.6,11,686/- on tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction of metering rooms at GMR Aravali Transmission Project. It is submitted that appellant was not registered under the service tax law under the advice that the services provided by the appellant are exempted from the levy of service tax. It is further submitted that the demand in question has been confirmed based upon the third part data as was received from the Income Tax Department. All relevant documents were provided by the appellant but no proper scrutiny has been done by the adjudicating authorities below. The work orders are composite involving use of material subject to levy of VAT/sales tax, hence the services rendered are in the nature of Works Contract Service and being original. Hence the service tax exemption is otherwi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are merely the labour contracts without supply of the material. Hence, abatement of 50% payment of service tax under Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 has rightly been denied to the appellant. It is further pointed out that appellant has admitted for not obtaining the service tax registration which is an apparent contravention of provisions of Section 68 and 69 and non-filing of returns is in violation of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. These observations have rightly been made the basis for imposition of penalty. The non-filing of returns and not getting registration have been rightly held as the suppression. Thus the extended period has rightly been invoked and even penalty under Section 78 has also been rightly imposed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 'Maintenance" only and not in the nature of 'original' work, hence, exemption not available- No findings on WCS or abatement by AOAppellate authority held pure labour contract 1. VAT payment/EC issued for the entire value of the contract for Rs. 2807425/- hence, entire contract to be considered composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods. 2. Works contract cannot be vivisected for levy of service tax. 3. Use of material in applying paint, primer and laying bitumen layer evident, hence, schedule-A covered under works contract. In contrast, no evident use of material in activities of Schedule-B. 4. Activity of schedule-A as is the case with the activities of Schedule-B, essential for working of railway, hence, '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 393749 5.3 The bare perusal reveals that the work of Schedule-A are in the nature of original works whereas those under Schedule-B are the works related to alterations. It is the original work which is exempted vide Entry No. 14(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Hence I hold that the demand with respect to the work orders mentioned in Schedule-A has rightly been dropped. With respect to Schedule-B work those are not the original work, the exemption from tax under above said Entry No. 14(a) is not available. However, it is not in dispute that the services with respect to Schedule-B work orders are provided to Indian Railways. The Entry at serial no. 12A(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Tax Department and non-filing of service tax return is wrongly held to be an act of suppression on part of the appellant. Otherwise also it is not the mere act of the suppression which entitles department to invoke the extended period while issuing show cause notice and to impose the penalty. The alleged act has to be proved to be a positive act done by the assessee that too with an intent to evade tax. 5.6 As already discussed above, since there was no liability of the appellant to pay any tax the question of having any intent to evade the same is absolutely redundant. We hold that there is no mala fide suppression on the part of the appellant. The department is therefore held to have wrongly invoked the extended period. I draw....