TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Apar Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat Firozabad, UP Project Corporation, RKU Mandi Parishad. 2.2 On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, it was observed that appellant received amounts as indicated in table below during the period 2015-16 and 201617:- S.No Name of the source of Income 2015-16 2016-17 1 Apar Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat Firozabad 3366332 0 2 UP Project Corporation 65786075 28792794 3 RKU Mandi Parishad 0 2394647 Total 6915240 31187441 2.3 It was also observed that appellant has neither filed any ST-3 return for the said period or have paid any service tax. Inquiries were initiated against the appellant and by letters dated 12.04.2021 and 15.04.2021 appellant have asked to provide copy of financial records/documents etc. for the verification of service tax liability if any to be paid by them. Appellant failed to reply of the same. 2.4 Thus, the liability of the service tax due on the amounts received as per 26AS as received is worked out as indicated in table below:- S. No. Period Taxable value as per 26AS Rate of Service Tax Service Tax payable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... providing declared services as defined under Section 66E of the services which were not covered under the negative list. They have failed to pay service tax and have not filed ST-3 return though registered with the department. Thus appellants, by way of suppression of facts by not filing the requisite details in respect of the services provided in the ST-3 return has deliberately and with intend to evade payment of service tax, suppressed the facts from the department. Hence extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invocable against them. 2.8 Show cause notice dated 28.04.2021 was issued to the appellant, asking them to show cause as to why:- "(i). An amount (Gross) of Rs.10,03,39,848/-. Received by the party from their client during the financial years from 2015-16 to 2016-17 in lieu of providing the services of "Declared Services" should not be treated as the total value of taxable services. (ii) Not paid Service Tax amount of Rs.1,47,05,217/(inclusive all cess) for the period 2015-168 2016-17 as discussed above, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as discussed above. b) I hereby confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting Rs. 1,38,57,900/- (Rupees, One Crore Thirty Eight Lac Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred only) (inclusive all cess) upon the noticee and order for its recovery from them under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. The rest demand of Rs. 8,47,317/-(Rs. Eight Lac Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seventeen Only) against the noticee is hereby dropped as being non sustainable in view of discussions and findings supra. c) I also confirm the demand of interest at the applicable rate on the demand so confirmed at Sr. No. (b) above) and order for its recovery from the noticee under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act 2017. The interest should be recovered from the due date till the date of actual deposit of service tax so confirmed vide aforesaid Sl. No. (b). d) I also impose penalty of Rs. 1,38,57,900/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Eight Lac Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred only) upon the noticee under Section 78 of the Act read with Section 174 of CGST Act 2017. However, an option is given to par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant has produced a copy of all relevant documents pertaining to their contract entered with M/s U.P. Projects Corporation Ltd for the receipts of Rs.2,87,92,794/- in respect of various Construction works executed by during the period 2016-17 for which no service tax was given to them by M/s U.P. Projects Corporation Ltd, therefore the appellant is eligible to cum tax value benefit in terms of Section 67(2) of the Finance Act'1994 for this Work Contract Services after considering their entitlement under S.No.9 of the table of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for payment of Tax only 50% part under RCM. Since the appellant has carried out entirely new construction work with material in original nature under the category of Work Contract, therefore the valuation of the service tax liability is to be calculated in terms of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 read with Notification No.24/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, Accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay Service tax as per following calculation on the gross receipt of Rs. 2,87,92,794/- for the period 2016-17; Gross value 28792794 Taxable value @40% of gross value in terms of Service Tax (Deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is liable to pay service tax on this taxable service as - (Please tick the appropriate category) A10.1 A Service Provider under Section 68(1) A10.2 A Service Receiver under Section 68(2) A 10.3 A Service Provider under partial reverse charge under proviso to Section 68(2) A10.4 A Service Receiver under partial reverse charge under proviso to Section 68(2) A 10.5 If covered by A10.3 above, then the percentage of service tax Payable as provider of service A10.6 If covered by A10.4 above, then the percentage of service tax Payableas recipient of service A11 Exemptions A11.1 Has the assessee availed benefit of any exemption notification ('Y'/'N') A11.2 If reply to A11.1 is 'Y', please furnish Notification Nos. and Sl. No. in the notification under which such exemption is availed A12 Abatements A12.1 Has any abatement from the value of services been claimed ('Y'/'N') A12.2 If reply to A12.1 is 'Y', please furnish Notification Nos. and Sl. No. in the notification under which such abatement is availed : A13 Provisional Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B1.13 Total Amount claimed as deduction B1.13=B1.8+B1.9+B1.10+B1.11+B 1.12 B1.14 Net Taxable value =B1.7-B1.13 B1.15 Service tax rate wise break up of NET TAXABLE VALUE (B1.14): Ad-valorem rate B1.16 Specific rate (applicable as per rule 6 of STR) B1.17 Service tax payable B1.18 Less R&D cess payable B1.19 Net Service Tax payable (B1.19=B1.17-B1.18) B1.20 Education Cess payable B1.21 Secondary & Higher Education Cess payable B1.22 Swachh Bharat Cess payable based on entries in serial number B1.15 &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices provided by him. If that had been the case the amounts declared in the ST-3 return would be same as those declared in ST-3 returns. By not filling the returns in the prescribed manner appellant deliberately and knowingly suppressed the Gross Amounts charged/ received toward the provision of the taxable service with intention to evade the payment of due service tax. Impugned order has relied upon a number of orders including those of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that extended period of limitation for making the demand is invokable in these circumstances. Counsel for appellant has not made any submission on any of the decisions relied in the impugned order. 4.7 It is also not the fact that revenue based the demand entirely on the information received from Income Tax department without causing any investigations. In facts information was called from the appellant vide letters dated 12.04.2021 and 15.04.2021. Appellant chose not to respond by providing the requisite documents or appearing against the summons. It is a settled position in law that no person can claim the benefit of his own wrongs in any proceedings (Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet or N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....juria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). 15. In Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127: 1996 SCC (Cri) 592] the accused 27 of 29 army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential condition for the commencement of trial and when the accused did not make himself available, he could not be allowed to raise a contention that proceedings were time barred. This Court (at SCC p. 142, para 28) referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 191 wherein it was stated: "It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, ....