TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), demanding service tax of Rs. 3,00,77,354/-, the period 2016-17 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017). The said Notice was issued on the basis of 3rd party data shared by the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs (CBIC). In the Notice, it was alleged that the appellant has rendered the taxable service of 'Construction Service' and not paid appropriate service tax. For quantifying the service tax, the consideration received by the appellant has been taken from the "revenue from operation" shown at Serial No. III-Statement of Profit and Loss in Segment-II of form AOC-4. 2. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide the impugned Order-in-Original No.15/ST/Commr./Audit/Ranchi dated 07.02.2024 wherein the demand of service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for setting aside the impugned order. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. We observe that the appellant has rendered the services of construction of road, bridge, etc., and as per Form 26AS, have made the following payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: - 2016-17 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) Service recipient Receipt (Rs.) Service recipient Receipt (Rs.) REO Works Division, Sherghati, Gaya 30838658/- REO Works Division, Sherghati, Gaya 652279/- Ramiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 39956123/- Ramiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 18242857/- Executive Engineer, RCD, Manoharpur 41069402/- Executive Engineer, RCD, Manohar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observe that the counsel for the appellant produced the copy of this closure report submitted by the Superintendent to the ld. adjudicating authority at the time of personal hearing and requested for dropping the demands. However, the ld. adjudicating authority ignored the closure report and confirmed the demand of service tax by making the following observations: "However, when I peruse the documents submitted by the noticee before me, I find no other documents except the Form 26 AS for FY 2015-16 to 2017-18 & the Financial Statements and Independent Auditors Report for the FY 2015-16 to 2017-18. Since, the noticee have not submitted the documents like Work Agreements, Payments Certificates etc for the relevant period, I cannot r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uisite documents have not been submitted by the noticee before me. Since, the adjudications proceedings cannot travel beyond the scope of the SCN, 1 restrict my findings to the SCN amount. The Hon'ble High Court, Gauhati in the case of M/s Sashreek Constructors Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India reported in 2023) 8 Centax 245 (Gau.)2023 (386) E.L.T. 411 (Gau.) has held that "the Court is of the considered opinion that as the writ petition does not disclose any documents by which prima facie satisfaction can be recorded that all receipts for which TDS was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS are entitled for exemption, hence, the decisions cited by the petitioner cannot be applied under the facts unique to this case." 5.4. We observe that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the order was pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 SATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, COST & CX RANGE-IV HARKET CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NEAR OLD BUS STAND NH-33, RABINDRA PATH, HAZARIBAGH-825301 [email protected] C. No. IV(04)06/Registered (16-17)/R-IV/HZB/2020-21 To, The Asstt. Commissioner, COST & CX Division, Hazaribagh Sir, 482 Date: 26.11.2021 Sub.: Veriscation report of Service Tax payment for the period 2016-17 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) in respect of 15/e Koleshwari Infracon Pvt. Ltd.-regarding- With reference to the subject cited above, it is to submit that necessary verification was initiated against M/s Ko....