TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant has re-quantified the demand and also gave the benefits of 50% of the Service Tax to be paid by the appellant, since it is a proprietary firm. He has confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,66,728/-, after dropping the demand of Rs. 12,64,416/. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. The Revenue has not filed any appeal against the dropped demand. 2. The Learned CA appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has rendered Works Contract Service, wherein both supply of materials and supply of service are involved. He submits that the appellant has rendered service to the individual residential units for which Service Tax exemption is available under S.No. (14)(b) of mega exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Therefore, the appellant was not paying any Service Tax. It is also on record that appellant has not collected any Service Tax from their clients on the belief that no Service Tax is payable. 3. He further submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 20.10.2021 demanding Service Tax for the transactions pertaining to the period 2016-17 is hit by time bar. It is on record that appellant had taken Service Tax Registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is providing Works Contract Service, and has given the benefit of 30% abatement applicable to non-original works and has also given the benefit of 50% Service Tax as the appellant is a proprietary firm. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed demand arrived by the Commissioner (Appeals) and prays that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal paper sand the documentary evidence placed before me. 8. In the course of the appellant, was asked to file the copy of the Registration Certificate which has been submitted by them by way of e-mail. The copy of ST-2 Registration Certificate is scanned below: 9. From the above Registration Certificate, it gets clarified that the appellant has been registered since 05.08.2011. 10. I find that they have also placed documentary evidence towards the works carried out by them. A sample copy of the order is reproduced below: 11. The appellant has claimed that he would be eligible for full Service Tax exemption as per Sl No. 14(b) of Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012. As an alternate, he has claimed that even if the Service Tax is payable on WCT basis, he will be eligible for abatement of 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... original works. Explanation 1 (i) pertains to 'new constructions' whereas Explanation 1(ii) pertains to the work carried in respect of existing structures so as to make them workable. Therefore, if there is any damage to the existing building due to water seepage and Water Proofing work is taken, the same is required to be viewed as 'Original works' only. This aspect has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). 16. Now coming to the arguments of the appellant on time bar issue, I find that the appellant is in existence on 05.08.2011. However, though the appellant was not paying the Service Tax nor was he filing any ST-3 Returns, the Range / Division officials never raised any query on such non-compliance for the next 10 years. The very first letter has been addressed to the appellant in January, 2021 seeking the details of Income Tax Returns, Balance sheet etc. Such action from the Revenue can be justified to some extent when the concerned person is not at all registered with the Department, but not in cases where the noticee is registered. In the present case, it is made out as if the officials have come to know about the non-payment only on account of Form 26AS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: '2. In this regard, the undersigned is directed to inform that CBIC vide instructions dated 01.04.2021 and 23.04.2021 issued vide F.No.137/472020-ST, has directed the field formations that while analysing ITR-TDS data received from Income Tax, a reconciliation statement has to be sought from the taxpayer for the difference and whether the service income earned by them for the corresponding period is attributable to any of the negative list services specified in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 or exempt from payment of Service Tax, due to any reason. It was further reiterated that demand notices may not be issued indiscriminately based on the difference between the ITR-TDS taxable value and the taxable value in Service Tax Returns. 3. It is once again reiterated that instructions of the Board to issue show cause notices based on the difference in ITR-TDS data and service tax returns only after proper verification of facts, may be followed diligently. Pr. Chief Commissioner /Chief Commissioner (s) may devise a suitable mechanism to monitor and prevent issue of indiscriminate show cause notices. Needless to mention that in all such cases where the notices have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is a settled legal position that mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service. 5.1. In support of this view, I rely upon the decision in the case of M/s. Rishu Enterprise vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Excise, Dibrugarh, in Final Order No. 75177 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75509 of 2022 [CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: - "8. In view of the judicial pronouncement of this Tribunal, we hold that merely on the basis of Form 26-AS issued by the Income Tax Department, the demand of Service Tax is not sustainable against the appellant. ................. 11. In view of this, we hold that the impugned demand is not sustainable against the appellant on the basis of the details provided by the Income Tax Department in Form 26AS and the extended period of limitation is not invokable." 5.2. The same view has been held by the Tribunal at Allahabad in the case of M/s. Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Allahab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Service Tax Code and other details are mentioned here- under. Name : Address : S K ENGINEERS 12-2-717/1/02.2ND FLOOR,MIDWAY PLAZA,SAPTHAGIRI NAGAR,MEHEDIPATNAM,HYDERABAD-500028 PAN No : AGIPG1537G Name as in PAN : VENKATA SURESI I KUMAR GOLUSUPUDI Nature of registration : Registration of a sing'o premise Service Tax Code(Registration Number) : : AG:PG1537GSD002 Taxabie services : BUSINESS AUXILIARY SERVICES, WORKS CONTRACT SERVICES ADDRESS OF BUISNESS PREMISES Name Of Premises/Building : S K ENGINEERS Flat / Door / Block No : 12-2-717/1/62.2ND FLOOR,MIDWAY PLAZA Road / Street / Lane : ATTAPUR ROAD Village / Area / Lane : SAPTHAGIRI NAGAR Block / Taluk / Sub-Division / Town : | MEHEDIPATNAM Post Office : MEHEDIPATNAM City / District : HYDERABAD Stato / Union Territory : ANDHRA PRADESH PIN : 500028 Phone Number-1 : 9848195907 Phone Number-2 : Fax Number-1 : Fax Number 2 : Email Address : laxmibhaskem- [email protected] Premises Code : 521304A001 SI No Types of Services Accounting Codes Tax Collection Other Receipts (Interest / Penalty) 1 BUSINESS AUXILIARY SERVICES 00440225 00440226 2: WORKS CONTRACT SERVICES 00440410 00440411 3 EDUCATION CESS 0044029....