TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arises in this matter is whether the Respondent was liable to pay any service tax on the differential amount which was reflected in the returns filed under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'the VAT Act') and under the Service Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter, 'the 1994 Act'). The said issue has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority which has framed the following questions: "Whether there is short payment of Service Tax under Works Contract Service arising out of Reconciliation?" 6. In respect of this question, the Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 10th April, 2017 has held as under: 46. The Noticee provided the break-up of their income, vide RUD-26, shown in the balance sheets for the financial year 2007-08 to 2010-11, and scrutiny thereof revealed difference between the amount of WCT Return and the amount of Works Contract Service in ST-3 returns as given in Table-A, supra. Accordingly, SCN-I seeks to demand a differential amount of service tax for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 collectively amounting to Rs. 18,95,70,056/- (details given in Table-B, supra) under Works Contract Service. Subsequently, SCN-II dated 22.05.2014 was also issued s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as per ST-3 returns regarding Erection Commissioning & Installation Service, Civil Construction Service, Works Contract Service and abatement which squarely fall under the Works Contract as defined under Section 2(au) of UP. VAT Act, 2008 et al. Therefore, while calculating the differential amount of service tax, the taxable value of the said services, in the first place, should have also been taken into account. 50. The next argument of the Noticee is that WCT/VAT Returns are on accrual basis whereas till 30.06.2011 the service tax was payable on the basis of amount received in lieu of taxable service provided or to be provided. Hence, there can be no comparison of value of WCT/VAT Returns and ST-3 Returns for arriving at the differential amount of service tax. 50.1 I find that prior to 01.04.2011, service tax was payable on receipt basis i.e, on receipt of payment of invoice or bill from the customer or receipt of advance, whichever is earlier vide erstwhile Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 2004. However, w.e.f. 01.04.2011 Rule 6(1) has been amended to provide that the service tax shall be paid to the credit of Government by 5th/6th of the month/quarter immedia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....records of service tax vis-à-vis books of accounts it has been certified that the Noticee has correctly paid their service tax liability on receipt basis till 30.06.2011 and on billing basis with effect from 01.07.2011. Accordingly, I am of the considered view the Noticee is not liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 18,95, 70,056/- us alleged in SCN-I. 51. As per SCN-II dated 22.05.2014 the Noticee did not provide the details qua WCT Return/income as per balance sheet. Thus, the demand of Service Tax of Rs.22,47,16,258/-covering the period 2012-13had been raised against them taking resort to Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1944 after arriving at the taxable value by increasing the WCT turnover of previous year (2011-12) to the extent of 150%. Against this, the Noticee's main stand is that they had provided the details in their letter dated 21.04.2014 (which has been acknowledged by the department in the SCN) in response to department's letter dated 11.02.2014 and the department did not seek any further clarification/information regarding the details submitted by them. Further, the department in their letter dated 02.05.2014 sought details of total income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments could not be disregarded. Paragraph 6.2.1 and paragraph 6.3 of the impugned order are set out below: 6.2.1 Consequently, we hold that unless evidence to the contrary is submitted by the department to disregard the CA Certificate, we find no infirmity with the findings in this regard in the impugned order. 6.3 In addition, we note that the demand for the period 2012-13, was based on Best Judgment method. It has been submitted by the Ld Counsel that the demand based on Best Judgment is incorrect as the appellant had submitted all details and documents to the department. It has been further submitted that vide their letter dated 21.04.2014 (RUD to Show Cause Notice dated 22.05.2014) wherein turnover pertaining to Works Contract Services was duly informed to the Department. Further, the Department has submitted that the demand for the period 2012-13 was arrived at by jacking up the turnover of WCT of previous year 2011-12 to the extent of 150% by resorting to Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the appellant had failed to provide the information sought by the department. In the instant case, we note that the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant had sho....