2025 (7) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he demand of Service Tax of Rs.6,51,213/- alongwith interest and imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that during the F/Y 2016-17, the Appellant M/s Harsh Constructions (Proprietor Shri Jaspal Yadav) had provided construction service in respect of Public Road & Government Building. But now dispute pertains to construction at District Judge residence, addition/modification of Eklavya Sports Stadium of UP Government & construction of boundary wall of Divisional warehouse. As per Appellant, prior to 2016-17, the Appellant was providing road construction service which was fully exempt from service tax. 3. On the basis of information for the F/Y 2016-17 received from IT de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....51,213/- pertaining to construction & repair of District Judge residence, addition/modification of Eklavya Sports Stadium of UP Government & construction of boundary wall of Divisional warehouse, alongwith interest and imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act and deleted the penalty under Section 77 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the impugned order, to the extent of demand of service tax confirmed and penalty under Section 78 imposed, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that during the F/Y 2016-17, the Appellant carried-out construction work with material (work contract) in respect of Government buildings etc. The Appellant has done construction service with material....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s work order were of 2016-17 and according to entry No.12A of Notification No. 9/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016, the work contract has to be prior to 1.3.2015. Lastly, it was argued that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.10.2021on the basis of information for the F/Y 2016-17 received from the Income Tax Department under third party data exchange, noticee has received amounts for providing taxable services as per ITR data for the F/Y 2016-17 and in the SCN, nature of service has not been mentioned. Therefore, Show Cause Notice is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside. The Appellant further submitted that they were under bonafide belief that since the construction work with material were done for Government is not taxable, therefore extended ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n at residence of District judge is exempt under Sl.No.14(b) of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012, I have perused the Sl.No. 14(b) of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 which reads as under:- 14. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works pertaining to,- (a) .................................................................; (b) a single residential unit otherwise than as a part of a residential complex; The work at residence of District judge would be covered by clause (b) of Sl.No.14 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012, therefore, exempt from service tax. 12. The next issue is construction at Eklavya Sports Stadium where modificatio....