AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective effect, hence, benefit of Entry 12 in terms of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, cannot be extended to the appellant. 2. The Appellant submits that they have provided works contract services to Military Engineering Services (MES), Ministry of Defense, Government of India. The said services are exempted from payment of whole of service tax vide Entry No. 12(a) of the Notification No. 25/2012 - Service Tax dated 20.06.2012. The relevant pat of the said notification is extracted below: - "12. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of - (a) A civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession' (b) ..." 2.1. The appellant submits that the said exemption was withdrawn vide Notification No. 6/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015 wherein Entry 12(a) was omitted. The exemption was thereafter restored, with certain conditions, vide Notification No. 9/2016-ST ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t referred the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Tushar Transport vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bokaro - I bearing ST/75604 of 2022 wherein it has been held that the demands confirmed merely on the basis of the data available in the Income Tax Returns/26AS Statements is not sustainable. It must be established that the amount shown in the 26AS statements are actually received in connection with taxable service rendered by the Appellant. 2.5. The appellant further submits that the comparison of information available in the 26As and Income Tax returns are made with GSTR 1 for the period from July, 2017 to March 2018 also, wherein the payments received during the period from July, 2017, to March, 2018, were also construed to be taxable supplies during the said period. The Learned Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that such amounts reflect merely the payment received and cannot be construed as outward supplies since such payments have been received in lieu of contracts which were entered into prior to 01.03.2015 against which payments were being released as and when some portion of the works under contract was being completed. The appellant submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age 8920/42/E8 16.01.2019 Do 10. Maintenance work to accomodation of GE 8949/34/E8 10.05.2019 Do 11. Repairs to accomodation 8825/09/E8 07.02.2018 Do 12. _ _ _ 55657 No work order or payment certificate submitted therefore, ST demanded. 13. _ _ _ 3090000 No work order or payment certificate submitted therefore, ST demanded. For FY 2017-18 (basis payment credited over the period from April, 2017 to March, 2018) 14. _ _ _ 932000 No work order or payment certificate submitted therefore, ST demanded. 15. _ _ _ 2850000 Do 16. _ _ _ 1950000 Do 2.8. With respect to Serial Nos. 1 to 11 of the above table, the Ld Adjudicating Authority has taken the amount credited as per 26AS as the sole figure and has adjusted the same against all contracts which showcases that the Authorities failed to appreciate that such payments were not in respect of all contracts but with respect to contracts which were completed and against which invoices were issued by the Appellant for such payment. Since the payments were credited in the dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value for the purpose of computing the service tax liability whereas, service tax was leviable only for the 1st quarter of the FY 2017-18 i.e. from April, 2017 to June 2017. Therefore, the computation of alleged taxable value is completely erroneous 2.12. The appellant further submits that the Ld Adjudicating Authority has charged service tax at the rate of 15% on the alleged taxable value, whereas, the Appellant providing original works to the MES, the rate of service tax ought to have been on 40% of the entire contract value instead of being calculated on the entire contract value and as such, the demand would have reduced drastically. 2.13. The appellant submits that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation. It is their submission the extended period can be invoked, only when there is willful misstatement or suppression of facts in the hands of the appellant. In the present case, the Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of materials available on record from the returns furnished by the appellant and not on account of any discovery of new facts by the department. Hence, the entire demand confirmed by invoking extended period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the amount shown in the 26AS statements are actually received in connection with taxable service rendered by the Appellant. We find that this view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Tushar Transport vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bokaro - I bearing ST/75604 of 2022. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: 16. The Appellant relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Kush Constructions Vs. CGST NACIN reported in 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 606 (Tri.-All.) and contended that the liability of service tax cannot be determined merely on the basis of Income Tax Returns / Form 26AS. The Appellant also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Luit Developers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Dibrugarh, wherein this Tribunal has held similar view that the demand cannot be based on AS26 statement received from Income Tax department, without any corroborative evidence. 17. From the decisions cited above, we observe that the demands confirmed merely on the basis of the data available in the Income Tax Returns/AS26 Statements is not sustainable. It must be established that the amount sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction services rendered to Government under Entry 12 in terms of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was disallowed due to non-submission of payment certificates and work orders. From the table extracted in para 2.7 supra, we observe that with respect to serial nos. 4 to 11 in the table, all the contracts have been entered in the FY 2017-18 and hence only GST could be charged upon such contracts and there could not have been any liability of Service Tax. For the contracts mentioned in serial nos. 12 and 13 of the above table, the figures have been taken from the 26AS without any verification whether such receipts are with respect to any taxable service rendered by the appellant. We observe that all the payments received during the period from July 2017 to March, 2018 have been construed as amount received for the taxable supplies rendered during the said period. In this regard, we observe that payments received during the period from July 2017 to March, 2018 is outside the scope of Service tax as GST is liable to be paid for the amounts received during the said period. Thus, we observe that there cannot be any demand made under service tax upon receipt of such paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maintaining the register required to be maintained in terms of Rule 57F(2) of the Rules. If such is the allegation against the assessee, the adjudicating authority committed a serious error in invoking the power under Section 11A of the Act. A reading of the show-cause notice clearly shows that the information was gathered from the registers and challans maintained by the assessee and the show-cause notice is not on account of any discovery of new facts by the (2015) 15 SCC 312 CEXA NO. 29 OF 2001 department either by conducting an inspection or based on intelligence. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked by the authority. 5.7. We find that the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of 2023 (72)GSTL 361 (Cal.) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. S.T. Commissionerate, Div-III, Kolkata , wherein it has been observed as under: 16. The next aspect is whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked. The disputed period can be divided into two the first of which being from March 2008 to March 2012. For this period, the show cause not....