TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act for the FY 2016-17 and the amount declared in their ST3 Return filed for the same period. Similar differences were also noticed for the period 2017-18. The department, thereafter, called for certain information/clarification from the appellant, however, the appellant, according to the department, did not furnish the relevant documents. However, in terms of Board's policy vide the circular dt.10.03.2017, an opportunity for pre-notice consultation was given to the appellant on 30.09.2021, where they claimed benefit under certain notification i.e., 25/2012 in relation to services provided to various recipients and applicable abatement also. They also submitted the contracts executed with their service recipient and the related invoices. However, the SCN issuing authority felt that the said exemption and abatement claimed by the appellant were not verifiable based on partial documents submitted on record and it was also observed that issue of SCN is the first step in dispute resolution process and noticee would have ample opportunities to present their case in case they wish to establish that incomes declared in Income Tax Returns are not taxable under Service Tax law. 3. On ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on third party information and has not carried out any independent investigation to arrive at the conclusion as to whether they were providing any taxable service or otherwise. Notwithstanding this submission, he has also submitted that on merits also, they had clearly explained that they have already paid certain service tax in respect of certain contracts and have not paid certain service tax assuming that these were non-taxable service being covered under notification 25/2012. He has further submitted that in respect of agreement from S.No.1 to 8 and from S.No.15 to 19, they had already discharged their service tax liability as was required during the relevant period before due date and that is reflected in their relevant ST3 Returns. He pointed out that even in the chart given at Para 13 in the SCN, there is an admitted fact that they have paid service tax of Rs.97,64,200/-. Some of these agreements and not as indicated in their appeal memorandum. 7. Further, he has mainly contested the charge of service tax in relation to agreement appearing at S.No.9 to 14 in respect of AP State Housing Corporation Ltd (APSHCL). His primary submission is that in all these works, they were en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 insofar as supply of services to APSHCL is concerned. Admittedly, in this case, the entire disputed period is post this amendment. As regards services to other recipient covered in demand, the same has to be seen whether there is any exemption available to them or otherwise. 11. The appellants are mainly contesting the demand on the grounds that the department has raised the demand for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017 on the basis of income as per ITR, income as per 26AS and the service tax paid as per ST3 filed by them. In fact, they have taken higher value among ITR and 26AS and compared the same with service tax paid as per the ST3 returns to work out the differential service tax required to be paid without having conducted any independent enquiry or investigation as to the nature of the services provided by them to different recipients or working out the taxable value in accordance with the provisions under Service Tax Act and Rules. He further submits that there is catena of judgments in their support that any demand based merely on ITR/26AS is not sustainable and therefore, the entire demand is liable to be dropped on this ground itself. He has relied on various judg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord and there is no other cogent or positive evidence by the department of their having deliberately withholding the information or suppression of any facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax and therefore, invoking extended period is bad in law as held in catena of judgments. We find that in this case, the SCN was served on 20.10.2021, whereas, the due date for filing ST3 return for the subject period is 15.08.2017 and therefore, the date of issuance is clearly beyond the normal time period allowed for serving notice, where the department is unable to substantiate any grounds for invoking extended period. Therefore, in view of the same, demand for the period 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) is clearly beyond 30 months. We find force in the reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs CCE [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)], wherein, inter alia, it was held that suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. The reliance placed by the appellant in support that mere non-payment of tax itself does not mean that appellants had suppressed information. He has relied on various judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dt.20.06.2012, various services were exempted. This exemption notification was further amended by Notification No.09/2016 dt.01.03.2016, whereby, one additional entry was inserted at S.No.14 as under:- "(ca) low cost houses up to a carpet area of 60 square metres per house in a housing project approved by the competent authority under: (i) The "Affordable Housing in Partnership" component of the Housing for All (Urban) Mission/ Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana; (ii) Any housing scheme of a State Government." 16. Therefore, as per this entry, low cost houses up to carpet area of 60 sq mtr per house in a housing project approved by the competent authority under the 'Affordable Housing in Partnership' component of the Housing for All (Urban) Mission/ Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana or any housing scheme of a State Government was covered. 17. Learned Advocate has mainly contested that they had been providing construction services to APSHCL for construction of low cost houses up to a carpet area of 60 sq mtr residential houses under NTR special housing scheme dovetailing with Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana for Hudhud victims. He has also relied on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 as amended by Notification No.09/2016 dt.01.03.2016 because housing schemes are approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the carpet area of individual flat is less than 60 sq mt. Therefore, on this count, the services provided to APSHCL would be exempted. We note that the adjudicating authority has considered all these agreements and has not doubted the authenticity or the amount indicated therein and in fact, he also held that these were in the nature of WCS. Therefore, we find that the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,12,50,172/- in respect of services provided to APSHCL would not sustain as the same would be covered under the exemption notification. It is also noted that appellants have already paid an amount of Rs.44,33,308/- in respect of said services. 19. The appellants have also claimed exemption in respect of services provided to other agencies, as under:- a) APSPHCL: Demand of Rs.17,79,192/- has been confirmed and the same has also been paid by the appellant. The appellants are relying on the judgment of Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s R D Contractor & Co Vs CCE & ST dt.22.02.2023, wherein, it was held that construction services provided to Gujara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d) APHMIDC: In this case also as against confirmed demand of Rs.27,71,345/-, appellants have already paid the same. However, though they are claiming exemption towards construction of hospital, they have not categorically brought out the notification or the provisions under which such services could be exempted and therefore, in view of the same, we are not inclined to accept their explanation that services provided by them to APHMIDC are exempted. e) K. Aruna: In this case, demand confirmed is Rs.3,23,400/- and the same has already been paid before the due date and they have also filed ST3 return. The appellants are not contesting either confirmation of demand or payment of service tax. f) APIIC: In this case, the demand confirmed is Rs.7,30,093/- and the same has already been paid before the due date and they have also filed ST3 return. The appellants are not contesting either confirmation of demand or payment of service tax. 19.1 Therefore, in respect of supplies made to APIIC, VUDA and K. Aruna, they are not contesting the confirmation of demand in this appeal. Therefore, to that extent, the demand confirmed is upheld. However, since in all these three cases, they had paid....