TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the respondent is registered with the Service Tax Department for rendering services, namely, 'erection, commissioning and installation service', 'transportation of goods by road service' as well as an 'Input Service Distributor (ISD)'. It was alleged that the respondent had not paid Service Tax amounting to Rs.45,19,87,188/- (inclusive of cesses) during the period from Financial Year 2007-09 to Financial Year 2011-12 by suppression of facts relating to provision of the said services and the amount / consideration received by them against the said services. 3. During the course of investigation, it was noticed that during the material period, the respondent had levied and collected Service Tax from their clients, but had not deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nses other than foreign travel or import of goods and in the absence of any information / documents pertaining to the same, it was assumed that the said expenses incurred by the respondent were in relation to 'banking and other financial services' received by them from one or more foreign entities, which is taxable in terms of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zm) read with Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, in the absence of any information relating to the respondent's foreign currency expenses during the Financial Year 2011-12, the same was assumed to be equal to that for the Financial Year 2007-08. 3.4. It was also noticed, with reference to the respondent's income against 'conversion charges' as well as 'other income' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue that the concerned projects were turnkey projects primarily involving 'laying and installation of sewerage lines for transport of fluids'. It was alleged that such services would be taxable under the category of 'works contract service' as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act. 3.7. It also appeared that as per the information provided by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (RUSDIP) to the Revenue, the respondent had received Rs.25,60,18,610/- from them against such services during the relevant period. Similarly, it was also found that projects awarded to the assessee/respondent by (a) Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (b) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. And (c) WBSEDCL were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, as per the information provided by WBSEDCL and JWNL, it was also alleged that the respondent had levied and collected Service Tax from their customers against 'erection contracts'. 3.9. Since contract-wise billing / receipt details for each financial year were unavailable, the Department has considered the gross value of the respondent's taxable contracts pertaining to the material period and distributed the same equally among the financial years under consideration to arrive at the tax liability in respect of the respondent's 'contract related projects' of Rs.35,12,65,067/- for the impugned period. 4. On the basis of the above allegations, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 12.01.2012 demanding Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alification for the other portion. 4.2. Therefore, it is the prayer of the Revenue that the value of all such supplies are required to be added in the taxable value of services rendered by the respondent, under 'works contract service' and accordingly, the impugned order is required to be modified by adding the values of such supplies in the taxable value of services provided by the respondent. 5. Heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue and perused the records. 6. We find that the ld. adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, has found that although the said contracts are turnkey projects, the respondent has been able to specify the value of materials supplied and involved in the execution of works. For better a....