TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs eleven thousand two hundred forty seven) only for the period from the financial year 2014-15 to 2017-18 (till June, 2017) has been confirmed under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. By the said order, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 has also been directed to be recovered, a penalty of Rs. 15,11,247/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs eleven thousand two hundred forty seven) only has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a further penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only has been imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner has also put to challenge the Recovery Notices dated 17.04.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Tezpur Division, whereby the bank accounts of the petitioner maintained with the State Bank of India, Tezpur Branch, bearing Account No. 20036902941, and ICICI Bank Limited, Tezpur Branch, bearing Account No. No. 070905500239, have been attached for recovery of the aforesaid dues. 4. The petitioner is engaged as a sub-contractor in execution of various infrastructure projects relating to construction of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Central Goods & Services Tax, Tezpur, passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 08.03.2022 confirming service tax demand of Rs. 15,11,247/- along with interest and penalty2. 8. Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was engaged as a sub-contractor under M/s Gammon India Limited in connection with various infrastructure projects relating to roads and bridges and all payments reflected in Form 26AS were received from the said principal contractor. Referring to Circular No. 147/16/2011-Service Tax dated 21.10.2011 and Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, learned counsel submits that works contract services rendered by a sub-contractor in respect of exempted infrastructure projects are also exempt from levy of service tax and as such, no service tax liability could have been fastened upon the petitioner. She submits that the impugned demand has been raised solely on the basis of Form 26AS without any independent determination regarding the nature and taxability of the services rendered by the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 3204/2021, the petitioner had submitted its reply along with relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court. The impugned order-in-original is therefore is bad and the same is liable to set aside. 40. A perusal of the Section 73 of the Finance Act reveals that the extended period in respect of recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded can be invoked only when any or more of the conditions prescribed under the proviso to the said section is present. Under the proviso to the said section, there are five situations when the extended period of limitation can be invoked. These are: (a) Fraud; or (b) Collusion; or (c) Willful misstatement; or (d) Suppression of facts; or (e) Contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax. 46. Such conclusions as have been discussed above are contrary to the facts which are evident from the pleadings. In any view of the matter for invocation of the provisions of Section 73 for extension of the period of limitation, it must necessarily be a case which falls under any or all the conditions specified under the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d services was on the recipient on the services. Since the adjudicating authority did not take into consideration those relevant materials which it was bound to take into consideration and on the other hand it had taken into consideration factors and materials, which if not irrelevant and not germane for deciding the liability of the service tax, cannot establish the liability of the assessee, then the said actions of the adjudicating authority is certainly without jurisdiction and/or is in excess of jurisdiction and thereby the impugned actions, orders and notices issued by the adjudicating authority are liable to interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 71. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the conclusion arrived at by this Court that such preconditions mandated by law under section 73(1) having not been fulfilled by the Revenue authorities, their assumption of jurisdiction under section 73(1) of the GST Act was completely unwarranted and revenue authorities could not have assumed the jurisdiction under section 73(1) unless these pre-conditions mandated and a conclusion th....