TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Petitioner had made willful suppression of material facts to evade payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,27,27,960/- including Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swachh Bharat Cess on the services rendered by the Petitioner during the Financial Year 2016-17 thereby violating the provisions of Sections 66B, 67 and 68 of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 and 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. In addition to that, vide the said Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2021, the Petitioner was also asked to show cause as to why penalty as well as interest as per the appropriate provisions of law should not be imposed upon the Petitioner. 4. To the said Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner submitted a reply on 15.11.2021. In the said reply, the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was a registered civil contractor and the contract receipts are from none other than the Central Government and State Government Departments and under such circumstances, the Petitioner was exempted under the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In addition to that, the Petitioner has also mentioned in the said Show Cause Reply that as the Petitioner was a Goods Transport ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondents herein have categorically submitted before this Court on 16.12.2025 that the Respondents would not file affidavit. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 8. Mr. U. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner herein is entitled to the exemption from payment of service tax in view of Clause 12A of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In that regard, the learned counsel submitted that this aspect that the Petitioner is entitled to exemption was not noticed or decided by the Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 and as such, direction should be issued upon the Respondent No. 2 to revisit the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 by permitting the Petitioner to submit the necessary documents which would show that the Petitioner is entitled to exemption in terms with the Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. 9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to the Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 and submitted that in terms with the said notification, it is the recipient of the service in the case when the taxable service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notification bearing No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 and it was on account of the Petitioner not submitting the required documents which would show that the Petitioner would be entitled to exemption, the Respondent No. 2 did not find that the Petitioner is entitled to exemption. Paragraph No.4.4 of the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 being relevant is reproduced herein under: "4.4 It has been observed that with regard to the Contract Receipts from State/Central Govt. Departments during the Financial year 2016-17, the Noticee has not submitted copies of any Work Order, Running Bills, Payment Vouchers, Invoices issued by them for rendering the taxable services during the relevant period. Hence, it was not possible to know the nature of services provided by them as well as to ascertain whether the services are exempted under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended. Also, the Noticee failed to submit Reconciliation Statement, working sheet and other relevant documents to correlate the amounts credited in their Form 26AS with the relevant work orders. Also, the notice failed to provide explanation/clarification supported by documentary evidences to substantiate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation regarding Third Party, department had to approach the income tax authority to know the quantum of taxable service provided by the noticee during the material period. Had the department not initiated the enquiry, the Service Tax liability on the part of the Noticee would have remained hidden and the assessment of service tax due to the Govt. Exchequer would have not known to the department. Therefore, invocation of extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as envisaged in the Demand cum Show Cause Notice appeared justified." 15. In the backdrop of the above, it is noteworthy to mention that it is an admitted case on the part of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not submitted any documents which would show that the Petitioner was entitled to the exemptions under both the notifications. Under such circumstances, in exercise of the powers of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot come to an opinion that the impugned order is unreasonable, irrational or illegal. It appears that the said order has been passed taking into consideration the materials on record which were before the Respondent No. 2. 16. This Court further finds it al....