TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant was registered with the service tax department and has been paying service tax and filing returns periodically. The Directorate General of analysis and risk management [DGARM] of the Central Board of Indirect Tax Customs examined the data of the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant and compared it with the receipts as per the form 26-AS for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and found difference between the two values. It must be pointed out that as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 persons making payments under certain circumstances are required to deduct tax at source (TDS) and deposit it with income tax department. The person who so deducts an income tax at source is also required to file TDS returns. The system of the income tax department combines the details of amounts paid and tax deduct by various persons in respect of each assessee into Form-26AS. In other words Form 26AS gives details the amounts paid by various persons to the assessee. 3. Since the amounts paid by various persons to the assessee during the relevant period were in excess of a consideration for services declared in the ST-3 returns, the department investigated the matter and issued a show cause noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that if these amounts are considered no differential service tax was payable by the appellant as below: Period Gross Receipts as per 26AS/ITR Taxable value declared in ST-3 ST Rate ST Payable on 26AS value Tax paid in ST-3 Demand confirmed 2016-17 7,62,79,409/- 68,52,834/- 15% 1,14,41,912 9,40,659 1,05,01,253 2017-18 (upto June) 8,89,44,790/- 10,66,652 15% 1,33,41,719 1,59,997 1,31,81,722 Total 16,52,24,199 79,19,486 2,46,83,631 11,00,656 2,36,82,975 6. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and proceed to decide each of the four issues below. Amounts received after 01.07.2017 8. From 01.07.2017 Central Goods and Services Tax Act repealed the Finance Act, 1994 and no service tax was payable. The appellant is correct in his submission that if any amounts were received by the appellant during this period as reflected in Form 26AS, Service Tax could not have been demanded. The Commissioner has rejected this contention of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tilizers. He also recorded that the services were provided to FCI, ITC, MPSCSC and RCS. However, he declined to consider this exemption on the ground that from the consignment notes issued by the FCI, it is evident that the appellant had handled and transported wheat and rice and the appellant failed to give a breakup of the amounts paid for GTA Service for handling and transporting of wheat and rice. 11. With respect to the ITC, the Commissioner held that the contract was for transport of bulk wheat, soya and other goods. Since the details of other goods were not mentioned in the contract, he denied the benefit of the exemption notification. In respect of the services rendered to MPSCSC he held that the agreement was for transportation of food grains/ wheat, etc. and since the details of "etc" were not given he denied the benefit of the exemption Notification. 12. With respect to services provided to RCF, noting that the documents submitted by the appellant showed that the goods were for transportation of fertilizers, the Commissioner found that the Exemption Notification No. 25/2012(Sr. No. 21) would be available only for GTA services, whereas the bills were for both transp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....greement itself was for transportation of food grains/wheat etc. The Commissioner has, without any basis, concluded that the expression "etc" would mean something which is not an agricultural produce at all. It must be remembered that civil supplies organization of the State Government supplies food articles and when the contract indicates food grains, wheat etc., "etc" would take its colour from food grains and wheat. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant transported for MPSCSC something other than food grains. Therefore, the Commissioner has wrongly denied the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 (Sr. No. 21(a)) to the appellant for the services rendered to this organization. 15. The RCF, likewise, is a manufacturer of fertilizers and the appellant produced sample bills for the transportation work which it had rendered for RCF and undisputedly GTA services were exempted during the relevant period by Notification No. 25/2012(Sr No. 21). The Commissioner denied the benefit on the ground that the invoices and sample bills were not signed. We find no reason to doubt that the appellant had rendered the services to RCF when the entire demand is based on Form....