2026 (4) TMI 1740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....17-18. The Adjudicating authority while passing the Order has made the following observations : (a) The entire demand has been made on account of the details taken from Form 26AS of the Income Tax Returns and no independent verification process was taken by the Revenue. (b) The appellant has rendered services to various Govt related works, which are exempt in terms of Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012. (c) The Form 26AS for the period April 2017 to March 2018 cannot be taken as the receipt for the period April to June 2017 alone. For the period July 2017 to March 2018, in view of the inception of GST provisions, the demand cannot be made under Service Tax [The Finance Act 1994 provisions]. 2. Based on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r TRF Ltd. He has noted at Para 26 of the OIO that the case laws cited by the appellant are distinguishable. In the cited case laws, the appellant could provide the evidence towards payment of Service Tax by the main contractor, whereas in the present case no such evidence has been brought in by the noticee. I find that even before the Bench, except for once again reiterating that the Service Tax has been discharged by the main contractor, the appellant has failed to provide any documentary evidence to this effect. 7. I also find that the decision as to whether the Service Tax is liable to be paid by the Sub-contractor, even while the main contractor pays the Service Tax, came to be decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Comr of ST N....