TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on received by the Service Tax Department of value of services declared by the Appellant in ITR and TDS data (Amount paid to the party by various parties and TDS by such payers as reflected in Form-26AS under Section 194C, 194H, 194I & 194J of Income Tax Act, 1961), obtained from the Income Tax Department for the financial year 2016-17, it appeared to the Department that the Appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under Finance Act, 1994 [The Act] to its clients. It was also observed that the Appellant was not registered under Service Tax for providing taxable services during the relevant period. The gross receipts received by the Appellant during the period under dispute is Rs.18,53,77,658/-, the Appellant was registered under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(1) of the Act and imposed late fine of Rs.40,000/- in terms of Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules read with Section 70 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed appeal before the first Appellate Authority and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under:- "4.1 The Appellant has contested that they have provided services to Nagar Panchayat, Hariharpur for construction of guest house at Indiranagar which is exempted under Entry No.12A of the Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. I observe that during the relevant period i.e. F.Y. 2016-17, the entry No.12A of the mega exemption Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is liable to pay service tax on the consideration received for construction of said guest house at Indiranagar. 4.3 The appellant has also contested that they are eligible for abatement of 70% on the gross value for construction activities performed by them. On perusal of bills produced by the appellant, I observe that the appellant has rendered constructed guest house along with materials, therefore, service rendered by them comes under works contract services. Since, the construction activities performed by the appellant comes under original work, therefore, the appellant is eligible for abatement of 60% on the gross value in terms of Rule 2A(i)(A) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. 4.4 In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019 (27) G.S.T.L. 575 (Tri-Bang.). The Hon'ble Tribunal in this case held as under- "Penalty under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1944 - Non-filing of returns - Sustainability - Said rule applicable only in case of delay in filing returns Since instant case is of filing no return at all, said rule not applicable - Penalty set aside Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. [paras 6,7]" 4.6.1 However, since the appellant has not filed ST-3 returns during the F.Y. 2016-17, therefore, I impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant under Section 77(2) of the Act for violation of Section 70 of the Act. 5. In view of the above, I modify the impugned Order dated 21.03.2022, as under: (i) Confirmation of demand of Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1994 which stood repealed much prior to that date and accordingly the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and bad in law. It is also the submission of the learned Advocate that the proceedings initiated by Revenue Authorities are wholly without jurisdiction being barred by limitation under Section 73 of the Act since the proceedings over the Appellant have been initiated without there being any finding or allegation. 5. It is also the case of the Appellant that the alleged Service Tax demand is unsustainable in law as it is covered under the Mega Exemption Notification and further Section 102 of the Finance Act and Entry 12A of the Mega Exemption Notification entitles the Appellant for complete exemption from any Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is liable to be set aside on this ground alone that no finding on merits of the matter has been given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Learned Departmental Authorized Representative justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 9. I find that the whole case of demand has been built up merely on the basis of figures shown in the ITR and Form-26AS statement. It is a known fact that Form-26AS statement is prepared by the Income Tax Department, not by the tax payers. There may be chances of error in such statement. It is further seen that the figures shown in Form-26AS statement differs with turnover....