2026 (8) TMI 329

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....Rupees Ten lakh Thirty Three thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Two Only) against Shri Virendra Singh, 68, Gali Baldev Sahay, Etah-207001 as discussed under the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of CGST Act 2017 as discussed. c. I also confirm the demand of interest on Rs.10,33,882/ at appropriate rates and order for recovery of interest from the Noticee under Section 75 of the Act read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017; d. I hereby impose a penalty of Rs.10,33,882/- (Rupees Ten lakh Thirty Three thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two Only) upon the Noticee under Section 78 of the Act read with Section 174 of CGST Act 2017 for suppressing the taxable value from the department with intent to evade payment of service tax as discussed above. However, an option is given to Noticee under sub Section (1) (ii) of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 that if the Service Tax along with interest is deposited within thirty days of communication of this order, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by the Noticee shall be twenty five percent of the Service Tax so determined in the order. Provided that the benefit of reduced penalty....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....total value of taxable services; b. Not paid Service Tax amount Rs.22,50,227/-(including cess) for the period 2016-17 & 2017-18 as, discussed supra, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act., 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; c. Interest on the amount as mentioned at (ii) above should not be charged and recovered under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; d. Penalty should not be imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 for failure to pay Service Tax during the relevant period suppressing the facts from the department. However, a option is being giver to noticee under the proviso (i) (1) of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 that if the Service Tax alongwith interest is paid within a period of thirty days from the receipt of Show Cause Notice issued under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance, Act, 1994, the penalty payable shall be fifteen per cent of such Service Tax and proceedings, in respect of such service tax, interest and penalty shall be deemed to be conc....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....leshar & Public Works Department (PWD), Etah for an amount worth Rs. 81,08,969. In this regard the findings of adjudicating authority under para 9.4 of the impugned order is reproduced below- Para 9.4 "....I have arrived at the conclusion that the Noticee has fairly succeeded in establishing his claim that he has provided services to "Governmental Authorities" of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Further, he has also succeeded in establishing that the services provided by him were not taxable, in as much as, the exemption available for services of pipeline, conduit or plant for ; (i) water supply (ii) water treatment, or (iii) sewerage treatment or disposal; in terms of clause 12(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and a road, bridge, tunnel or terminal for road transportation for use by general public, in terms of clause 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, were available to him. In light of the discussions hereinbefore, I hold that Noticee is not the value of Rs. liable for payment of any service tax on 81,08,969/ under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended), read with Section 174 of the CGST Act....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....work orders/agreements against the said amount of Rs. 42,695 have not been provided by the appellant before this forum too. (v) Certificate dated 02.04.2024 issued by M/s Manoj Suppliers, Etah mentioning that they had supplied soil to the appellant worth Rs. 4,05,758/-during the period 2016-17. In this regard I find that no sale invoice/bill/ledger/VAT return has been provided by the appellant and in absence of the said documents the above receipt appears to be chargeable under service tax. 5.5 From above it is observed that the documents/work orders/agreements required to substantiate their claim that the services provided by them worth Rs 68,92,544/- [Rs. 42,695 during 2016-17 + Rs. 4,05,758/- during 201617 + Rs. 64,44,091 during 2017-18] are exempted from service tax and the demand of service tax of Rs. 10,33,882/- against the same is not sustainable under the Act, have still not been provided by the appellant. In this regard the findings of the adjudicating authority under para 10.4 of the impugned order is reproduced below- "After discussing the entire issues and recording the findings on each issue, out of total demand of Rs. 22,50,227/- mentioned i....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....e noticed that during the period covered in the demand notice, the Noticee has been awarded contracts for providing services of "construction of road, khadanja, nali", to department of government of Uttar Pradesh. The detail of payment made to service provider has been submitted by the Noticee and amount received from the service recipient during the F.Y. 2016-17 and F.Y. 2017-18 are as under: Table-B FY:2016-17 S. No * Name of the work Contract Nature of Work Nam e of Services Work Contract value Amount Received (in Rs) भुगतान क दिनांक Service Recipient Contract No. & dated 1 UP Lok Nirman Vibhag PRO CB No.2016- 17/53/EE dt.20.09. 16 एटा सक्ठि मार्ग से नगला बोखर संपर्क मार्ग पर विशेष मरम्मत कार्य Work Contract 8,19,29 8 1,77,57 5 31.10.1 6 ....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

.... नाली     39,962 28.10.1 6     पटियाली गेट से मारहरा गेट रोड पर रोहनलाल कूचा, चिरंजीलाल खजांची एवं रफीक के पास पुलिया निर्माण     68,502 28.10.1 6     शांति नगर गेस्ट हाउस सड़क का निर्माण कार्य के लिए     97,434 28.10.1 6     कैलाश मंदिर रोड प....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....e Government of Uttar Pradesh, as like other state governments, has constituted these authorities in the name of the Nagar Palika Parishad & Public Works Department (PWD and these "Governmental Authority" have been entrusted with the work of taking care o the Government financed works like, Construction/repair of Road etc. for use by the public at large in entire state of Uttar Pradesh. The details of legal provisions regarding formation/incorporation available before me clearly make me to understand that the departments of the Uttar Pradesh State Government, which are detailed above and ar operating in various districts of Uttar Pradesh, are the establishments created by concerned State Governments under proper Acts, which are undoubtedly, the creation o the statute." 4.5 To the extent that the appellant had not produced the documents/certificate issued from the concerned authorities for the period 2016-17 the demand was dropped and the benefit of exemption has been extended to the appellant. Now, I am concern with the demand of service tax on receipts of Rs.64,44,091/- for the Financial Year 2017-18 and Rs.4,05,758/- for the year 2016-17. 4.6 Appellant has along wi....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Previous Next

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2026 (8) TMI 329