TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he "impugned order"] passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Goods & Service Tax, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate, C.R. Building, Hakimpara, Haren Mukherjee Road, Siliguri - 734 001. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been registered with the Service Tax Department for rendering works contract services. On the basis of verification of records of the appellant, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2020 was issued to the appellant, proposing to demand Service Tax amounting to Rs.60,49,639/- (inclusive of cess), along with interest and penalty. 3. During adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority, vide the Order-in-Original No.25/ADJ/ST/JC/SLG/2021-22 dated 15.12.2021 confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs.20,20,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stration, which is a Government authority eligible for the exemption provided under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the appellant contends that there can be no Service Tax liability on their part in respect of the above construction and beautification services of tourist spot rendered by them to the Government Authority, viz. M/s. Gorkhaland Territorial Administration. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand of Rs.18,75,422/- confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4.2. Next, with regard to the demand of Rs.19,723/- under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service, the appellant's contention is that the said services have been rendered to M/s. Gorkha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted by them that the issue has been raised on the basis of data available in Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns; that there is no dispute that they were filing their ST-3 Returns for the concerned period and the demands have been raised on the basis of an alleged mismatch in the value of gross receipts as reflected in the ST-3 Returns and Form 26AS during the said period. Thus, it is contended by them that there is no intention to evade payment of Service Tax existing in this case. Accordingly, the appellant argues that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is barred by limitation as well. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. In particular, he submits that the activities of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, I do not find any force in submission of the Revenue that the said services were meant for commercial purposes for denying the benefit of exemption under the aforesaid Notification. 7.2. Sl. No. 12A of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 specifically exempts the works contract services rendered to a government or local authority or a governmental authority by way of services such as construction, erection, commissioning, installation, etc. For better appreciation of the facts, the relevant entry of the aforesaid Notification is reproduced below: - "12A. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the category of Goods Transport Agency Service, I find that the appellant has rendered the said services, as a Goods Transport Agent, to M/s. Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, which qualifies as a body corporate. As the transportation services have been received by a body corporate, I agree with the submission of the appellant on this score that in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the liability to Service Tax is on the recipient of service i.e., M/s. Gorkhaland Territorial Administration. Accordingly, I hold that the demand of Service Tax of Rs.19,273/- under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service on the appellant is not sustainable and consequently, the same is set aside. 9. As regards the deman....