TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to Railways. (b) Works Contracts Service provided as sub-contractor of another contactor who is providing exempted works contract service. (c) Construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to 'a single residential unit otherwise than as part of a residential complex'. 2.1. On the basis of the data received from CBDT, the department vide their letter dated 06.02.2020 sought to verify the service tax payments by the appellant for the Financial Years 2015-16 and 201617. However, due to onset of COVID-19 from March, 2020 and declaration of nation-wise lockdown, the appellants were unable to collate requisite documents. The appellant submitted the documents such as Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Income Tax Returns, 26AS, copies of some agreements, contract-wise break-up of revenue to the concerned Superintendent vide email dated 13.08.2020. Subsequently, the Department issued the SCN dated 20.10.2020 based on data collected from CBDT for the Financial Year 2015-16 demanding service tax including Cess totally amounting to Rs. 24,96,404/- along wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial unit otherwise than as part of a residential complex'. The appellant could not provide any valid document like agreement to build residential houses. Hence in absence of any proper work order/bill etc, he could not accept the contention of the appellant that they were entitled to exemption. 3.1. In this regard, the appellant submits that the Notice issued has not calculated the service tax amounts individually on the above three components against respective service values. The service tax liability(including cess) @14.5% on the said amounts are calculated as below:- (a) On Rs. 1,98,710/- ---- Rs. 28,812.95 (b) On Rs. 19,55,000/- --- Rs. 2,83,475/- (c) On Rs. 1,50,62,872/- --- Rs. 21,84,116.44 Total ---- Rs. 24,96,404/- 3.2. The appellant submits that the instant SCN was issued solely on the basis of data available as per CBDT [26 AS] without adducing any corroborative evidence and without causing any independent enquiry. The appellant submits that demands raised and confirmed solely relying on the CBDT data is legally not sustainable. In support of this view, the appellant relied on the following cases:- M/s. Nanu Sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to them by the South Eastern railway related to the same kind of original works provided to the railways by them. The appellant submits that the Department had not conducted any enquiry/investigation with the Railway authorities to ascertain the factual events before issuance of the SCN. Thus, the appellant submits that the demand of service tax confirmed on this count is not sustainable. (b) Regarding the liability of service tax on the taxable value of Rs. 19,55,000/-, the appellant submits that the said amount as reflected in their 26AS was received from Manisha Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. for whom they had rendered construction service for upgradation of Divisional Hospital at Chakradharpur for South Eastern Railway as a subcontractor. Against such services rendered by them, the said Manisha Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. had paid the said amount of Rs. 19,55,000/-. Since the work contract undertaken by Manisha Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. is exempted from service tax as per Sl. No. 14(a) of N.F. No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, they as a subcontractor providing such service to the main contractor for South Eastern Railways is also not liable to pay any service tax a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demands of service tax. Thus, the appellant submits that the demand of service tax confirmed on this count is not sustainable. 4.1. In view of the above submissions, the appellant prayed for setting aside the demands of service tax along with interest and penalties confirmed in the impugned order. 5. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 7. Regarding the liability of service tax on the taxable value of Rs. 1,98,710/-, we observe that the said amount reflected in 26AS was disbursed by the 'Office of The DY FA&CAO/CON' . It is evident that the said amount was disbursed by the Accounts office of South Eastern Railway. We find that the nature of work executed by the appellant falls under the category of 'Execution of zonal works/supplies to station building, platforms and circulating area' which is in the nature of original works provided to Railways. We find that the said services are exempted from service tax as provided under Sl. No. 14(a) of N.F. No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The appellant enclosed a specimen contract dated 04.11.2016, though of a different period, which clearly shows the nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AS statement. The Department could have ascertained the veracity of the submission made by the appellant by causing enquiry at the end of Manisha Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. which the department did not undertake. We observe that the evidence submitted by the appellant clearly indicate that the said work was performed by the appellant railways as a subcontractor to Manisha Power Construction Pvt. Ltd. There is no dispute that the said service is exempted from service tax as per Sl. No. 14(a) of N.F. No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. As a subcontractor providing such service to the main contractor for South Eastern Railways is also not liable to pay any service tax as per Sl. No. 29(h) of N.F. No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, we hold that the appellant are eligible for the exemption and hence the demand of service tax confirmed on this count is not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 9. Regarding the liability of service tax on the taxable value of Rs. 1,50,62,872/-, we observe that the said amount has been shown in the ITR filed by the appellant for the Financial Year 2015-16. We observe that the said amount is related to providing service of Construction of single resi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7216582/- Rs.17216582/- Rs 24,10,321 Rs.86,083 Rs 24,96,404 10.1. From the above table, we find that there is no break of demand under separate categories of service mentioned in the Notice. Thus, we find merit in the submission of the appellant that the demand is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. 10.2. We further find that the instant SCN was issued solely on the basis of data available as per CBDT [26 AS] without adducing any corroborative evidence and without causing any independent enquiry. We find merit in the submission of the appellant that demands raised and confirmed solely relying on the basis of CBDT data is legally not sustainable. The appellant cited various decisions of the Hon'ble High courts and Tribunals in support of their contentions that the demands raised and confirmed solely on the basis of CBDT data is not sustainable. We find that the decisions cited by the appellant supports their contention that the demand confirmed solely on the basis of data available as per 26 AS, without adducing any corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Thus, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside on thi....