AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a-vis ST-3 returns. Based on further investigations, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding service tax amounting Rs.3,49,01,987/- alongwith interest and proportionate penalty. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand alongwith interest and imposed equivalent penalty. The appellant is before this Tribunal in appeal. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant is a proprietor of M/s. Balaji Construction and is engaged in the business of construction of roads, dams and bridges for Government and Local Authorities. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was rendering services of construction of roads for Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority MPRRDA, Public Works Department PWD, and Nagar Nigam, Burhanpur. In addition, the appellant was also rendering services of construction of dams and bridges for Water Resource Department WRD. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel submitted that the demand confirmed for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 was legally untenable, as it was for the period of GST. The Department's demand on gross revenue for 2017-18 fails to acknowledge that the Finance Act 1994 had ceased to apply after 30.06.2017. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nceded that it appears to be exempt from service tax. Nevertheless, the Department had sustained the demand on the grounds that the work orders issued by WRD to the Appellant do not pertain to the disputed period, despite the Appellant's work being exempt in nature. Learned counsel submitted that the work orders were awarded prior to the disputed period, and since the service was continuous in nature, it was also rendered during the disputed period. The Appellant had issued invoices for the work performed and received consideration from the Government Department accordingly. The bill and the completion certificate substantiate the Appellant's claim and establishes a clear link between the work order, the services rendered, and the consideration received. Thus, service tax demand amounting to Rs.14,03,586/- is liable to be dropped. 8. Learned counsel submitted that Department had failed to appreciate that construction of 'Haat Bazaar' was for non-commercial purposes and therefore the appellant was entitled to claim exemption from service tax by virtue of entry 12A (a) of mega exemption notification. It is an undisputed fact, that Rural Engineering Services (RES) is a gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... related to royalty deduction made by the Government Department from the bill issued by the appellant in respect of construction work. In the present case, the appellant owned the crusher and was converting the big stones into 'gitti' for construction of road for which the appellant was paying royalty to the Government. The said royalty was deducted by the Government from the construction bills issued by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was not liable for making payment of service tax under RCM on the same. 10.3 As regards insurance, these expenses are related to the insurance premium paid by the appellant which was debited in Profit & loss A/c during the disputed period. The appellant had obtained certain insurance policies from the insurance companies who had charged service tax under forward charge and the appellant had paid the invoice value inclusive of tax to the said companies. The Department had failed to appreciate the said fact and confirmed the demand. Hence, the demand for Rs. 1,51,886/- is not tenable. 10.4 The transportation charges were paid for transportation of goods supplied by the appellant. As per Notification No. 30/2012-ST, a proprietor is not lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used for commercial activity. Hence the services provided by them by way of construction of haat Bazar were taxable. Learned authorised representative stated that the taxing statute has to interpreted as per the words and placed the judgement in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company & Ors. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 SUPREME COURT. 13. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned authorised representative for the Department. We find that the impugned order has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,49,01,987/- along with interest and imposed penalty on the appellant. The issue for consideration before us is whether the appellant is liable for service tax on road construction rendered to Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority, Public Works Department, and Nagar Nigam, Burhanpur. The appellant was also involved in construction of dams and bridges for the Water Resources Department, MP. A portion of the demand also relates to liability under reverse charge mechanism. 13.1 The details of the services provided by the appellant and the relevant work orders is elaborated in the Table below : - Financial Year 2016-2017 S. No. Name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.2010 whereas the said notice was issued on 2010.2021. In this regard, we reproduce the relevant clauses of section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, hereinafter : "SECTION 73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short- levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, Central Excise Officer may, within thirty months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short- paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice : Provided that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of - (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C,(Inserted vide Notification 48/2016 -Service tax) as the case may be, along with a copy of the Form TR-6, in triplicate for the months covered in the half- yearly return. (2)Every assessee shall submit the half yearly return by the 25th of the month following the particular half-year. [Provided that the Form 'ST-3' required to be submitted by the 25th day of October, 2012 shall cover the period between 1st April to 30th June, 2012 only:] [Provided further that the Form ST-3 for the period between the 1st day of July 2012 to the 30th day of September 2012,shall be submitted by the 25th day of March, 2013.] " 15.2 In the instant case, it is clear that the department had detected the mismatch based on the ST-3 returns, hence the appellant is covered by the 73(6)(i)(a) and the last date for filing of the relevant return for the period is 25.10.2016. As the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021, the said notice is not time barred, as claimed by the learned Counsel. 16. The learned Counsel has also submitted before us that the demand for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 is not sustainable as the Goods & Services Tax was introduced with effect from 01.07.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by an entity registered under section 12 AA of the Income tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) and meant predominantly for religious use by general public; (d) a pollution control or effluent treatment plant, except located as a part of a factory; or a structure meant for funeral, burial or cremation of deceased;... " 17.1 We note that the impugned order has acknowledged that the appellant was receiving money from the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority whose objective was to implement the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and the PWD and Nagar Nigam. It has also been acknowledged in the said order that all the work orders awarded to the appellant was for construction of road. The adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of exemption because the appellant had failed to provide the work orders indicating the period for the service provided. Further, it has been held that the copy of submissions made by the appellant was not legible, hence the demand has been confirmed. In this context, we note that once it has been acknowledged that the appellant had received work orders from MPRRDA/PWD/Nagar Nigam for construction of roads, the benefit of the aforesaid exemption ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as awarded prior to the disputed period, and as it was a continuous service, the same was rendered during the period of dispute as well. We note that the appellant has submitted the construction bill and the completion certificate in this regard. We are of the opinion that the Department has not established that the said work orders along with the construction bill and completion certificate does not pertain to the period of dispute, hence the said demand cannot be sustained. 19. We now address the demand of service tax on construction of 'Haat Bazaar'. It has been submitted before us that this service was provided to Rural Engineering Services, which is a governmental authority. The exemption under entry 12 (a) has been denied on the grounds that the Haat Bazaar is intended for commercial purposes. The exemption under this entry is as follows:- "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 ....