TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest at appropriate rates on the aforesaid demand of service tax under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 against M/S. VSN Infratech Pvt. Ltd. B-8, Khapra Mohal, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur and order for recovery of same from them. 3. I impose a penalty of Rs. 22,23,132/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Two only) upon M/S. VSN Infralech Pvt. Ltd B-8, Khapra Mohal, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, 4. I also impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) under Section 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994 upe: M/S VSH Infratech Pvi. Lid. B-8, Khapra Mohal, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur for the contraventions of the provisions discussed above 5. I also impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-[Ten Thousand) under Section 77 (1) (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 upon M/S VSN Infratech Pvt. Ltd. B-8, Khapre Mohal, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur for the contraventions of the provisions discussed above. 6. I also impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand] under Section 77 (1) (d) of the Finance Act, 1994 upon M/S, VSN Infratech Pvt. Ltd. B-8. Khapra Mohal, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur for the contraventions of the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 1210806 2.3 Appellant deposited tax dues of Rs.6,50,000/- vide Challan No.14 on 28.12.2013 and Rs.5,60,806/- vide Challan No.467 dated 28.06.2014. 2.4 The authority on finding that appellant has failed to declare their service tax liability under VCES application truthfully and correctly as the appellant had declared the tax dues amount to Rs.12,10,806/- for the relevant period whereas on examination of calculation chart the same should have worked out to Rs.14,02,684/-. Accordingly, the declaration filed by the appellant was held to be liable for rejection. The said rejection was made after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and was informed to them through Order No.07/VCES/2013 dated 14.11.2014. Appellant vide letter dated 13.11.2014 informed that they have deposited the short declared service tax to the tune of Rs.1,91,877/- vide Challan No.00352 dated 30.10.2014. 2.5 An inquiry was conducted for ascertaining the correct tax liability by way of issuance of letter dated 24.10.2013 and summon dated 01.11.2013 to the appellant. In response, appellant furnished balance sheet for the year 2009-10 to 201112 and thereafter they have filed VCES appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11162; Appellant during the period from April 2009 to December, 2012 was not issuing any bills/invoices to their service recipients, but also no records showing details of cost of material used in respect of each work contract/ payment receipt were being maintained by then during the said period. 2.8 On the basis of above it was observed that appellant have short paid service tax as indicated in table below:- Period Gross receipt against provision of taxable services Taxable value after abatement @ 33% vide Notf. No.1/2006-ST dt. 01.03.06 Rate of Service Tax Service Tax payable by the party 2009-10 5455638 1800361 10.3% 185437 2010-11 832640 274771 10.3% 28301 2011-12 21183109 7580376 10.3% 780779 2012-13 (upto 31.12.2012) 48190033 23318649 12.36% 2882185 Total of Service Tax payable by the party Rs. 38,76,702 2.9 From the facts as indicated above, total service tax liability of the appellant was calculated to Rs.38,76,702/- whereas in their VCES declaration, they have declared as Rs.12,10,806/- which cannot said to be treated as complete declaration. 2.10 After rejection of VCES, a show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015 read with corrigendum issued under C. No. V(15) OFF/ADJ/ST/243/2014/6308 dated 31.12.2015 and there appears no mistake apparent from records. Further, the time prescribed for issue of any rectification order under section 74(1), ie.. within two years of the date on which such order was passed, has elapsed. Accordingly, your application stands disposed of." 2.12 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Ankul Udai learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri A.K. Choudhary learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. After completion of hearing, both the sides were given opportunity to file written submission in the matter within a period of 15 days. However, no written submission has been received from either of the sides. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- ⮚ The appellant have filed VCES declaration declaring their service tax liability. The total amount declared towards the services provided by them and the amount calculated in the show cause notice are exactly identical. Thus, even if there were computational error in the VCES declaration, the same should not have been rejecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent on record. o Defects in application, if any, should be explained to the declarant and possible assistance be provided in rectifying these defects. The efforts must be to accept declaration, as far as possible, and recover the arrears of tax. The findings of the learned adjudicating authority in Para 26.2 are contrary to the directions of the board and thus a mistake has crept in the order which needs to be rectified. o Without admitting the said liability it is respectfully submitted that an amount of Rs. 14,02,684/- has been admittedly paid by the applicant and therefore the differential amount could be calculated to Rs. 20,31,254/- whereas the amount of Rs. 1,97,877/- deposited by the applicant on 30.10.2014 has escaped in calculating the differential amount which has been calculated at Rs. 22,23,132/-. This mistake apparent on record is required to be rectified. o The fact that the amount of services rendered as declared by the applicant in VCES-1 exactly tallied with the amount of services calculated by the department has not been considered by the learned adjudicating authority as no findings has been given on these submissions of the applicant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with the corrigendum. We do not find any provisions in the law which permits filing of multiple rectification mistake applications. It appears that appellant had filed second rectification mistake application after more than five months from the communication of the order on the first application made for rectification of mistake. By the second rectification application, applicant ahd sought to challenge the correctness of order of the competent authority made rejecting his application under VCES. This ground was considered by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order and a finding recorded. This fact was communicated to the appellant by the letter dated 22.12.2017. It is settled that finding recorded in the order on any ground even if erroneous cannot be termed as obvious error apparent from record and rectified in terms of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. In the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (9) S.T.R. 113 (S.C.)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "11. "Mistake" is an ordinary word but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riting, reject a declaration if any inquiry/investigation or audit was pending against the declarant as on the cutoff date, i.e., 1.3.2013. An order under this section shall be passed following the principles of natural justice. To allay any apprehension of undue delays and uncertainty, it is clarified that the designated authority, if he has reasons to believe that the declaration is covered by section 106 (2), shall give a notice of intention to reject the declaration within 30 days of the date of filing of the declaration stating the reasons for the intention to reject the declaration. For declarations already filed, the said period of 30 days would apply from the date of this circular. The declarant shall be given an opportunity to be heard before any order is passed by the designated authority. 13 What is the appeal mechanism against the order of the designated authority whereby he rejects the declaration under section 106 (2) of the Finance Act, 2013? The Scheme does not have a statutory provision for filing of appeal against the order for rejection of declaration under section 106 (2) by the designated authority. 14 A declarant pays a certain amount under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Trust in lieu of providing services of construction at the Engineering Colleges at Aligarh & Kanpur. The amount of service tax involved on said services is Rs.1,85,437/- and Rs 28,301/-, respectively after allowing the abatement. As per the copies of work orders and the completion certificates issued by the service recipient, It has been noticed that the service were provided for construction of Septic tank, Manhole Chambers, Rainwater Harvesting for ground recharge for college and hostel buildings of colleges at Aligarh and Kanpur: The facts regarding providing the said services have not been disputed by the party and the department, as well. One more fact, which has not been disputed by the department, is that the services were provided to the educational institutions engaged in imparting technical education of university level and awarding degree. I have also noticed and verified from the concerned website [http://www.vision.org.in/vita] of the Vision Institute of Technology-Aligarh (VIT-A) that the institute is accredited by AICTE and approved by Mahamaya Technical University (MTU) Noida and the MTU Code is 524. Similarly, the Vision Institute of Technology-Kanpur (VIT-K) is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to service tax. 13.2 The leviability of service tax would depend primarily upon whether the building or civil structure is 'used, or to be used for commerce or industry. The information about this has to be gathered from the approved plan of the building or civil construction. Such constructions which are for the use of organizations or institutions being established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation or philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit are not taxable, being non-commercial in nature. Generally, government buildings or civil constructions are used for residential, office purposes or for providing civic amenities. Thus, normally government constructions would not be faxable. However, if such constructions are for commercial purposes like local government bodies getting shops constructed for letting them out, such activity would be commercial and builders would be subjected to service tax 27.4. Thus, for the taxability of service tax for the "Commercial or Industrial construction service", the real test as explained in para 13.1 of the said letter is to verify the usage of such construction by the servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove definitions and the clarification, it is very clear that the services "in relation to Construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof which is used, or to be used primarily for commerce or industry or intended for commerce or industry, only is covered under the category of "Commercial or industrial Construction Service. 27.9. In this regard, I have also considered the CBEC Circular No. 116/10/2009 dt. 15,09,2009, which is as under- "the essence of the definition of "Commercial or industrial Construction Service" is that the "commercial or industrial construction service" is chargeable to service tax if it is used, occupied or engaged either wholly or primarily for the furtherance of commerce or industry. As the canal system built by the Government or under Government projects, is not falling under commercial activity, the canel system built by the Government will not be chargeable to service tax. However, if the canal system is built by private agencies and developed as a revenue generating measure, then such construction should be charged to service Tax" 27.10. From the above, once again it gets clarified that the exemption from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....empted from levy of service tax, as the same have not been considered as service, as per the exclusion clause Further, the definition of "work contract", as defined in section 65(105)(zzzza) also excludes the service provided to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams from the levy of service tax as the same have not been treated as service under the exclusion clause. 26.1.3. Further, the CBEC Circular No. 110/4/2009-ST dated 23-02-2009 issued under F. No. 345/17/2008-TRU had clarified that the Commercial or Industrial construction service under section 65(105) (zzq) specifically excludes construction or repairs of roads. The relevant para of the circular are reproduced below: "2. Commercial or industrial construction service (section 65(105) (zzq)) specifically excludes construction or repairs of roads. However, management, maintenance or repair provided under a contract or an agreement in relation to properties, whether immovable or not, is leviable to service tax under section 65(105) (zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994. There is no specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....viable on the gross amount charged for construction including the value of construction of roads. 28.1.5. In light of the facts and provisions discussed above, it can be seen that the standalone construction services provided by the party in respect of construction of RCC reads in the factory premises and the residential premises at M's HAL, Korwa shall not be liable to service tax. Accordingly, I hold that the services provided by the party to Mis HAL, Korwa are not taxable. I also hold that the service tax amounting to Rs.34,116/-is not demandable from the party and liable to be set-aside. 28.1.6. However, the services provided by the party al the factory premises of Mis HAL, Kanpur for construction of Flight Shed, Taxi Track and Ground Run Tarmac shall not be exempted from the service tax, as the same are the services provided to Commercial and Industrial concern [HAL] by a Commercial & Industrial Service provider [the party and the constructed civil structure/building is intended for use in commercial or industrial activities of the recipient. Secondly, the contract is a composite contract for construction of various civil structures including road. No exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay that the services have been provided to Commercial and Industrial concem by a Commercial & Industrial concern for up-keeping the Industrial Area, where the Commercial and Industrial concern are engaged in Commercial and Industrial activities Thus, from every angle, the services provided by the party are taxable under their respective heads. 28.2.2. The party, in this regard, had claimed that they have provided the services to government of Uttar Pradesh for executing its industrial projects hence, not chargeable to service tax. I do not agree with the submission of the party, as the service has not been provided to the government of Uttar Pradesh. I have already recorded above that the service has been provided to Limited Corporation hence, their taxability cannot be disputed on argument placed by the party. Secondly, for the argument of the party that the work has been performed for benefit of public at large hence, they are not liable to tax, I have failed to find any legal provision in support of their claim seeking exemption. In this regard, I have placed reliance on the case of M/s Graphite India Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik 2014 (036) STR 0948 (Tri Mumbai). A Service Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll not be chargeable to service tax. However, if the canal system is built by private agencies and developed as a revenue generating measure, then such construction should be charged to service Tax. 28.3.1. The work of construction of CC lining in the canal is also a work for canal system. These systems of canal are in the nature of projects to provide irrigation amenities to the farmers and to augment agriculture. This is sovereign function of Government to provide facilities for betterment of agriculture sector. This cannot be termed as commercial activity, in as much as, the government has not developed these canal systems for generating revenue and earning profit or for furtherance of any business. As per the clarification issued by CBEC vide Circular No. 116/10/2009 dt. 15.09.2009 (reproduces supra), the canal system built by Government, cannot be termed as commercial activity. Accordingly, any construction service provided for construction of canal cannot be considered as "commercial or industrial construction" service so as to charge service tax. 28.3.2 From the above, it gets clarified that the exemption from payment of Service tax can be denied only if th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed solely for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation or philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit are not taxable, being non-commercial in nature." Therefore, before seeking any exemption, it is mandatorily required to establish that the construction in question was for use in providing services of non-commercial nature. However, from perusal of the relied upon documents and the reply submitted by the party, I have failed to find any such document on record that proves or substantiates the party's claim that the construction services were provided for construction of buildings that were meant for use in non-commercial or non-industrial purposes. 28.4.3. On the contrary, the services appear to have been provided to a commercial concem viz. Mis UP.Processing & Construction Cooperative Federation Ltd., Allahabad, as the name suggests that the recipient is a Limited concern. Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence to support the contention of the party, I do not find any reason to allow exemption from levy of service tax, as has been claimed by the party. Under the circumstance, I hold that the services provided by the party taxable and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial & Industrial construction services provided for road construction prior to the prenegative list regime have already been discussed in detail in para 28.1 to para 28.1.5 and for the sake of brevity are not being reproduced again. The relevant provisions have also been reproduced in the said paragraphs for ready reference. 30.1.2. As per the definition of the "commercial or industrial construction service" under Section 65(105)(zzo) of the Finance Act, 1994, as reproduced in para 26 5.7 above, the clarification contained in para 14.4. & 14.5 of the letter of JS(TRU) dated 27-07-2005 and the clarification contained in CBEC circular no. 110/4/2009-ST dated 23-02-2009. I have observed that the services provided for construction of roads have been exempted from levy of service tax, as the same have not been considered as service, as per the exclusion clause. Further, the definition of "work contract", prior to 30-06-2007, as defined in section 65(105)(zzzza) also excluded the service provided to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams from the lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Finance Act, 1994, para 13.1 & 13.2 of CEBEC circular no.80/10/2004 dated 17-09-2004 and the clarification in CBEC circular no. 116/10/2009-ST dated 15-09-2009 have been considered and on consolidating the facts, the provisions and the clarifications, it has been concluded that the exemption from payment of Service tax can be denied only if the services are used for the civil structures/buildings that are used, occupied or engaged either wholly or primarily for the furtherance of commerce or industry. In this case, the facts are that the constructed building is being used by the students/employees of the institute, which by any stretch of imagination cannot be considered as use of building for commercial or industrial purposes. 30.2.2. In light of the facts discussed above, I hold that the party is not liable to pay any service tax on the services provided to Harish-Chandra Research Institute (HRI) for construction of Married Block Apartment. I also hold that the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.24,062 on the aforesaid services is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. 30.3. The next exemption has been claimed by the party on the service provided to M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for discussion and recording appropriate findings. 32.1.1. The first are the services provided to M/s HAL Korwa in relation to construction of Patrolling track inside the factory boundary wall and RCC roads around the factory and in the township. The amount received on this account are Rs 31,76,023/- and Rs.5,46,734/- and the service tax involved thereon after allowing the abatement are Rs.1,57,023/- and Rs 27,031/-, respectively. The nature of service provided has not been disputed by the party, which means that they have provided "works contract" service with material. The valuation has also not been disputed hence, the amount of abatement is also not under dispute. The status of recipient being a commercial and industrial concern (Limited Company engaged in providing services in aviation sector has already been discussed in preceding paragraph no.28. 1 & 28.1.1, in detail. The unit at Korwa is Avionics Division and at Kanpur is Transport Aircraft Division. It is a well known fact that the recipient is a commercial establishment engaged in commercial activities of manufacturing and selling of aircrafts and also providing maintenance services relating to aircraft. They ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that "construction of roads for general public is exempt from service tax but, construction of roads which are not for general public use e.g. construction of roads in factory, residential complex would not be taxable". The Sl.No.14, 25 and 29(h) of the notification are in relation to other services, which are not related to the recipient or the party hence, discussing the same is Irrelevant. Under the circumstances, I find that the services of construction of road provided by the party to M/s HAL, Korwa are taxable services and liable to appropriate service tax at appropriate rates. I hold that the service tax amounting to Rs.1,57,023/- and Rs.27,031/-, is demandable from the party. 32.2.1. The next is the construction service in relation to construction of Married Block Apartment at Harish Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad. The amount received by the party on this account is Rs. 16,07,762/- and the service tax involved thereon is Rs.79,488/-, The Harish-Chandra Research Institute (HRI) is a premier institution dedicated to research in mathematics and in theoretical physics and is funded by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The facts are verifiabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as Government for extending benefit of exemption provided under the mega exemption notification, I have visited the site of the Institute and have noticed that it is an autonomous institute funded by Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. I have noticed that in terms of clause (23) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, the institute is not a part of government, in as much as, the executive powers are not exercised by the President of India or the officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. In terms of article 77 of the Constitution all executive actions of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President of India, which is not the case here, in fact the Central Government means the President of India and the officers subordinate to him while exercising the executive powers of Union vested in the President and in the name of the President. Similar is the condition with the State Governments, where the executive powers are vested in the Governor or the officers subordinate to him who exercise the executive power of the state in the name of Governor. Similarly, the recipient of services is also not a local a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the party to the Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited. Under the circumstances, I find that the party is not eligible for exemption on the said services provided to Meja Urza and hold that the amount of service tax of Rs. 91,665/- is demandable from the party. 32.4.1. The next are the services provided by the party to M/s UPSIDC at various locations at Lucknow and Faizabad. The services provided at Lucknow are in relation to maintenance of Industrial Area at Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and the amount received on this account is Rs.34,42,940/- Involving service tax of Rs. 2,97,883/- after allowing abatement. The nature of service provided by the party to UPSIDC at Faizabad is cleaning of drains and Road Side Parties at Industrial Area, the amount received on that account is Rs. 58,31,770/- and the service tax involved thereon is Rs.7,20,807/-. The service tax has been demanded on full amount because the services were not work contract services with supply of material alongwith. These are the simple services not involving ant material and thus liable to be classified as services defined under Section 658(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the entire gross receipts are taxable in terms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide dated 2006-2012 published by CUEC on the matters of service tax. It has been clarified therein that various entities like a statutory body, corporation or an authority constituted under an Act passed by the Parliament or any of the State Legislatures cannot be considered as "Government or "local authority". Such statutory body, corporation or an authority are normally created by the Parliament or a State Legislature in exercise of the powers conferred under article 53(3)(b) and article 154(2)(b) of the Constitution respectively. It is a settled position of law Government (Agarwal Vs. Hindustan Steel AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1150) that the manpower of such statutory authorities or bodies do not become officers subordinate to the President under article 53(1) of the Constitution and similarly to the Governor under article 154(1), Such a statutory body, corporation or an authority as a juristic entity is separate from the state and cannot be regarded as Central or State Government and also do not fall in the definition of "local authority. Thus, regulatory bodies and other autonomous entities which attain their entity under an act would not comprise either government or local author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also a work for canal system and certainly it is not a commercial activity, in as much as, the same has not been developed by the government as a source of generating revenue. These systems of canal are in the nature of projects to provide civic amenities or to segment irrigation and are in discharge of sovereign function. These cannot be considered as projects of Industrial or commercial purpose thus, would be outside the scope of taxability. 32.5.3. From the above, it gets clarified that the exemption from payment of Service tax cannot be denied in light of the facts that specific exemption has been provided. Thus for the reasons discussed above, I hold that the party is not liable to pay any service tax on the services provided to Bagla Canal Division, Allahabad for construction of CC lining of canal. I also hold that the service tax amounting to Rs.31.561/-is not demandable from the party. 32.6.1. The next service relating to construction has been provided to M/s U.P.Processing & Construction Cooperative Federation Ltd., Allahabad (PACCFED), which they have claimed to have been provided for construction of NM Centers in rural areas of Allahabad district. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrived at the conclusion that the actual liability of service tax for the period declared in the VCES-1 was Rs.34,38,007/-, which has been arrived at after deducting the exempted tax liability of Rs.4,38,895/- in light of the facts discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The total tax liability also includes the differential amount of service tax of Rs. 1,91,877/-on account of calculating the tax liability et rate of 10.30% adv, of the taxable amount instead of calculating at the affective rate of 12:36%. Against the said tax liability the party had filed form VCES-1 only for Rs.12,10,800/- Thus, the facts discussed in the preceding paragraphs clearly specify that the party short declared their actual tax liability by Rs.22,27,201/-[34,38,007/-()12,10,806/-), which is about 64.78% of the total tax liability. It can be seen that this is a substantial amount and if the department would not have enquired the matter against the party, this amount would have certainly escaped from being demanded from the party. Thus, the question, as to whether the service tax demanded by the department on the entire receipts of the party was legal and proper or not, stands decided in light of the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ementioned circular and applying the same judiciously, certainly makes the declaration substantially false. Moreover the word "substantially", if considered in its simple terms means "To a great extent or degree" "significantly"; "considerably" and "largely and the 64.78% amount of total tax liability can safely be called a "substantial amount" and consequently, the Form VCES-1 (declaration) can be termed as substantially false declaration. Thus, in view of the facts discussed above, I am of the firm opinion that declaration filed by the party was "substantially false"," 35. I have further noticed that for recovery of tax amount, the provisions of Section 111(1) relating to VCES read with Section 73(1) have been invoked for demanding the service tax. In the preceding paragraphs, it has been discussed and proved that how the allegations made by the department that the declaration filed by the party was "substantially false", stand proved. As regards, applicability of the provisions of Section 111 of the Finance Act, 1994, that have been Invoked against the party, I have considered the said provisions and have noticed that Section 111 prescribes that where the Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue of liability to pay differential service tax alongwith the issue to invoke the provisions for recovery of interest and imposition of penalties, as proposed in the notice. In the paragraphs supra, have discussed the provisions of Section 111 of the Finance Act, 1994. The provisions clearly hold that if the declaration is found to be untrue, the notice has to be issued to declarant in respect of "tax dues not paid or short paid", requiring him to show cause, as to why he should not pay the "tax dues not paid or short paid and the said notice shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 73 or 73 A, as the case may be and all other provisions of Chapter relating to penalty and interest shall also apply. In this case, the declaration has been found to be substantially false to the extent discussed in preceding paragraphs. And for the said reason the department can initiate action for recovery of its legitimate revenue. Considering the aforesaid findings, I would also like to record that once the notice has been issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 1994, the proceedings shall have to be concluded. While reading the provisions vis-à-vis, the clarification in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of any law are statutory duties. The fee or amount collected as per the provisions of the relevant statute for performing such functions is in the nature of a compulsory levy and are deposited into the Government account. Such activities are purely in public interest and are undertaken as mandatory and statutory functions. These are not to be treated as services provided for a consideration. Therefore, such activities assigned to be performed by a sovereign/public authority under the provisions of any law, do not constitute taxable services. Any amount/fee collected in such cases are not to be treated as consideration for the purposes of levy of Service Tax. 33. However, if a sovereign/public authority provides a services, which is not in the nature of an statutory activity and the same is undertaken for a consideration (not a statutory fee), then in such cases, Service Tax would be leviable as long as the activity undertaken falls within the scope of a taxable service as defined. 34. Letting of immovable property for consideration, which is determined on the basis of offers received from public at large by the assessee Greater Noida Industrial Devel....