AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.44,89,734/- against providing taxable services covered under Finance Act, 1994. It is also mentioned in the SCN that the Appellant should have taken registration under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax of Rs.6,73,460/- should have been paid by them as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly, they should have filed ST-3 Returns as laid down under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act, ibid. Vide the Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2023, the demand of Service Tax to the tune of Rs.6,73,460/- was confirmed alongwith applicable interest and penalties were imposed under Section 78, under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) modified the demand to Rs.83,098/-. Aggrieved with the impugned order to the extent of demand of Service Tax confirmed and penalties under Sections 78, 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 imposed, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that during the financial year 2016-17, the Appellant carried out construction work of road for the UPPWD by way of supplying Gitty a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t received in the financial year as per 26AS statement: FY 2016-17 1. Executive Engineer, CD, PWD, Jaunpur 102/EE/16-17 dated 02.12.2016 39,35,745.00 2. Executive Engineer, CD, PWD, Jaunpur 99/EE/16-17 dated 02.12.2016 Total Payment As per 26AS 39,35,745.00 4.8 On perusal of the Form 26 AS, it is evident that all the payments to the appellant have been received from Public Works Department of Uttar Pradesh Government and are also directly co-relatable to the Contract Bonds listed in para 4.5. 4.9 On perusal of the copy of contract bonds, it is observed that these contracts have been awarded to the appellant from Government Departments of Uttar Pradesh for construction road which are covered under Sl. No.13 (a) of the exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and the payment against these contract bonds have been received to the appellant during the period 2016-17 which is clearly evident from the form 26AS submitted by the appellant. Thus, it is found that the amount of Rs.39,35,745/- received by the appellant from Public Works Department actually pertains to exempted category of work under Sl. No.13 (a) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. I find from the records that SCN has been issued on information for the financial year 2016-17 received from Income Tax Department/26AS under third party data exchange. Since, the Appellant has not taken Service Tax registration and ST-3 returns were not filed, SCN has been issued on the basis of ITR/26AS. I have gone through the work order given by PWD Department regarding construction of roads for UPPWD. 7. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. On perusal of the SCN, I note that the entire SCN is based on the data received from the Income Tax Department in Form 26AS. Revenue has not examined the data received by them to know whether any service was rendered by the Appellant which attracted service tax. When the exemptions were claimed by the Appellant before the Original Authority, he has simply ignored the submissions and confirmed the entire demand as raised in the SCN. Therefore, both SCN and Order-in-Original put toget....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value received were in connection with taxable service rendered by the Appellant. This view has been supported by the following judgments:- (i) Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Vs. ACST Reported in (2023) 2 Centax 327 (Cal.); (ii) CST Vs. Hindustan Cables Ltd., reported in 2022 (382) ELT 188 (Cal.)." 9. As also in the case of Go Bindas Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 397 (Tri.-All.)], this Tribunal in para 4 has held as follows:- "4. After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned Advocate Shri Kamal Jeet Singh for appellant and learned A.R. Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner for revenue, we note that the entire case of revenue is based upon the comparison of figures, as pointed out in the balance sheet with the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns. The appellant has explained that such difference has occurred on account of the accounting system as per the Income Tax Law, which explanation, in principle, stands accepted by the lower authorities. Even then the lower authorities have gone ahead and confirmed the demand. In any case and in view of the declaration, we note that it is well settled law that no demand can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Engineers Ltd. - 2016(44) S.T.R. 671 (Tri. Del) the Tribunal also observed as under 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in providing taxable service. Certain proceedings were initiated against them for not paying the Service Tax mainly on the basis of income-tax return filed by them at Jaipur. It is the case of the Revenue that the respondent failed to discharge the Service Tax on full taxable value as reflected in the income-tax returns. Accordingly, the original authority, after due process, confirmed the Service Tax of Rs. 8,25,789/- under the category of 'Consulting Engineer service'. He also imposed penalties under various sections on the respondent. On appeal by the respondent, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is in appeal. 3. The main grounds of appeal is that respondent could not produce documentary evidence about Service Tax payment properly for the impugned period at Chandigarh and Lucknow. The ST-3 return filed at Chandigarh and Lucknow did not tally with income-tax return filed in Jaipur office. 4. We ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original insofar as respondent of Service Tax Appeals Nos. 170, 171 and 173 of 2005 was concerned. As per the above settled legal position, we hold that the demand of service tax is not sustainable on the basis of TDS /26AS statements." 11. On perusal of the above stated findings of this Tribunal in various cases, I note that the issue is no more res integra and it has been decided that only on the basis of data in Form 26AS, Revenue cannot issue SCN demanding Service Tax. Here, I note that charging Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 provides for levy of Service Tax at a specific percentage on the value of service. Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 provides that where Service Tax is chargeable on a taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall be the consideration in money charged by the service provider. Therefore, it is primarily important to determine the value on which service tax shall be levied at a specific percentage and such value should be the value of taxable service. Clause (44) of Section 65B of Finance Act, 1994 has provided for definition of service and it has elaborately dealt with a list of activities which shall not be included in such....