TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the noticee against the above confirmed demand; 3. I also impose a penalty of Rs 36,44,549.00 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Nine only) upon the noticee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; 4. I confirm the demand of late fee amounting to Rs 2,20,000 (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Thousand only) from the noticee under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, 5. I also impose a penalty of Rs 20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) upon the noticee under Section 77(1)(a), 77(1)(b) and 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 2.1 Appellant is registered with and is providing/ receiving services under taxable category of "Work Contract Services" and "Legal Consultancy Services" 2.2 Investigations undertaken revealed that appellant had not paid service tax on the services provided by them to M/s Amar Nath Ashram Trust, UP State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd, Bulandshahar, Thakur Giriraj Ji Maharaj Trust, Govardhan, Jal Nigam, Mathura, Saint Paul School, Mathura, M/s Zillion Infra Projects, Delhi, M/s Ginni Filaments Ltd., & M/s PACCFED (UP Processing and Construction Cooperative Federation Ltd.). A s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction Co [2017 (12) TMI 1379 - CESTAT New Delhi • Ratan Das Gupta & Co [2017 (3) GSTL 247 (T-Del)] • Anand Construction & Co [2013 (32) STR 451 (T-Del)] • The services provided by them to the M/s Amar Nath Trust and also M/s Ginni Filament are work contract services on which service tax liability is to be computed on 40% of the Gross Amount charged. Impugned order holds these services as repair and maintenance and computed service tax on 70% of gross value. • They have deposited the service tax payable on the services provided to M/s Ginni Filament by computing the tax payable on 40 % of gross amount. • Services provided by them to M/s Madhucon Projects are in relation to construction of toll Plaza at Jaipur Highway. These services being in relation to road are excluded from the definition of work contract services as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. Reliance on • Rajendra Singh Bhamboo [2019 (22) GSTL 278 (T-Del)] • Jagdish Prasad Agarwal [2017 (3) GSTL 455 (t-Del)] • IDAA Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. [2014 (34) STR 87 (T-Mum)] • Rolle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices (Section 66E of the Act) except as mentioned in Negaiive List under Section 66D or exempted vide any exemption notification, are taxable services. I further find that vide SI. No. 13(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-S dated 20.06.2012 only construction related work in respect of building owned by an entity registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and meant predominantly for religious use by general public are exempted from payment, of service tax. Here the noticee has constructed college/ hostel building and other misc. construction work, thus the services provided by Noticee to Amar Nath Ashram Trust are leviable to service tax. As per Point (i) of second proviso to Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in case of continuous supply of service where the provision of the whole or part of the service is determined periodically on the completion of an event in terms of contract, the date of completion of each such event shall be deemed to be the date of completion of provision of service. Accordingly the taxable value of such services provided by the noticee on or after 01.07.2012 is calculated as per Form 26AS of noticee as under: TABLE-A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and got themselves registered as late as on 18.08.2015 i.e. only after initiation of investigation against them. Had the department not initiated the enquiry against the noticee, they should have succeeded in apparent evasion of service tax, as such extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked against the noticee. From the documents available on record , it has also been proved that the noticee have failed to file the required periodical returns in time as such the noticee is liable to penal action under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as well as Section 77 of the Act ibid. 30.1 I find that there are evidences on records which show that the noticee had knowingly and willfully suppressed material facts. The noticee failed to bring the relevant facts as outlined above to the notice of the Department. If the enquiry would not have been initiated against the noticee, this evasion of Service Tax by the noticee has remained un-noticed and the noticee would have succeeded in evading the payment of service tax. Therefore, the noticee, with intent to evade payment of Service Tax, had willfully suppressed the facts from the department and contravened various pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Const Co-operative fed 932273 NON-TAXABLE 7 U.P. Processing & Const Co-operative Fed 6177649 NON-TAXABLE TOTAL 34580074 F.Y. 2014-15 1 Amar Nath Ashram Trust, Mathura 5392625 TAXABLE 2 Construction & Design Services 1130323 NON-TAXABLE 3 Ginni Filaments Ltd 3359598 TAXABLE 4 Ginni Filaments Ltd. 2229505 TAXABLE 5 ST Paul Public School 1400000 NON-TAXABLE 6 U.P. Processing.& Const Co-operative Fed 150456 NON-TAXABLE TOTAL 13662507 TABLE-B (Amount in Rs.) SL. NO . NAME OF DEDUCTOR AMOUNT RECEIVED TAXABLE VALUE (Composite Scheme of Work Contract as per Rule 2A of S.T. (Determination of Value) Rules. 200,] RATE OF SERVICE TAX SERVICE TAX PAYABLE By Receiver By Provider F.Y. 2010-11 1 Ginni Filaments Ltd 202288....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thing in writing or submitted any documentary evidence showing that they have filed ST-3 returns; As such in absence of any documentary evidence, it is proved that they have not filed any ST-3 return as such they are also liable to pay late fee for non filing of ST-3 returns. Since the noticee has not filed any ST-3 return for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15 which involved total eleven (11) returns, therefore, the noticee is liable to pay late fee @ Rs.20,000.00 for each return under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Thus from above omission and commissions on the part of noticee, as discussed supra, the noticee is also liable for penal action under Section 77(1)(a), 77(1)(b) & 77(2) of the Act" 4.3 From the show cause notice para 6.1 it is evident that the demand has been made against the appellant under the category work contract services and not under the category of Repair and Maintenance Services as has been submitted by the appellant. Para 6.1 of the show cause noptice is reproduced below: "6.1 From the above, it appears that the activities undertaken by the noticee during the period under investigation are of the nature of work done In relation to "Repair or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences we do not find any erits in the reliance palced by the appellant on the decisions in case of,- • Rajendra Singh Bhamboo [2019 (22) GSTL 278 (T-Del)] • Jagdish Prasad Agarwal [2017 (3) GSTL 455 (t-Del)] • IDAA Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. [2014 (34) STR 87 (T-Mum)] • Roller Centrevs [2013 (31) STR 293 (T-Ahmd)] 4.5 From the work orders of Amar Nath Ashram Trust, Mathura it is evident that each work order has been given stating that "Service Tax (if applicable) will be charge extra." Appellant have claimed exemption from payment of service tax in teeth of the above, assertion in each of work order in terms of Sl No 9 of Notification No 25/2012-ST. We reproduce the said entry below: "9. Services provided to or by an educational institution in respect of education exempted from service tax, by way of,- (a) auxiliary educational services; or (b) renting of immovable property;" The services provided by the appellant are under the category of "work contract services" and are not in nature of the services specified under the said entry. We do not find any merits in the submissions made by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of appellant. In both the cases demand was held time barred by the lower authorities and benefit was extended to the appellants therein by the authorities below. The question of suppression and invocation of extended period of limitation is a question of facts and needs to be examined in facts of each case. Impugned order clearly records the reason for invoking the extended period, and we do not find any challenge in the appeal or during the course of arguments before us to the same. 4.8 As we uphold the invocation of extended period the period, the penalties imposed upon the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are justified in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd [2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)]. 4.9 As we uphold the demand for tax demand of interest under Section 75 is also consequential and upheld. 4.10 Penalties imposed under Section 77 (1) (a), 77 (1) (b) and 77 (2) are also justified for the reasons of contraventions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. Appellant has contravened the provisions by not taking registration, not filling the returns and not paying the tax by the due ....