2026 (4) TMI 1432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of commercial or industrial building and civil structure. But the appellant was observed to have not paid service tax amounting to Rs.7,83,303/- during the period 2015-16. The information was called from income tax department from the data received including the e-TDS, 26 AS Form of the relevant period. It was observed that the appellant had received a substantial amount as contract money. The TDS on the same was deducted under Section 194C (paid to constructor) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant was called upon to explain the receipt of the said income but despite repeated reminders, the appellant opted to neither to appear nor to submit any document. 1.2 Department formed an opinion that the income tax mentioned in the income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... provided work contract. Specific columns have been mentioned for claiming such exemptions/abatement, if any. Despite being given enough opportunities, appellant failed to provide relevant documents/written submissions. Therefore, demand has rightly been confirmed and penalty is rightly imposed. To support his submissions, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Rajesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Chennai reported as (2023) 11 Centax 62 ( Mad.) (ii) Hakim singh Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Alwar in Service Tax Appeal No. 54894 of 2023 dated 16.11.2023. (iii) Warsi Buildcon Vs. Principal C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7.10.2017, 05.12.2017. However appellant did not reply a single letter. The show cause notice was served. The appellant failed to submit reply to the said show cause notice. It is also observed that before the Original Adjudicating Authority also, appellant did not appear, despite that the effective opportunities of personal hearing to explain their defence were given to the appellant. The order (O-I-O) was passed ex parte. The said order was being challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) where the appellant though appeared but failed to file the documents with written submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that though in the submissions, the appellant mentioned about submitting the work contracts along with the appeal memo bu....