TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for the CGST and CX. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application is seeking following reliefs : i) the order dated 21.03.2024 (as contained in Annexure-6) passed by the Respondent No. 1 imposing Service Tax, interest and penalty without consideration of the written submissions, the exemption Notification issued by the Central Government on the gross value of the contract regarding service by way of loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of rice and being contrary to Article 366 (29Ab) read with Entry 54 of List II and also Article 265 of the Constitution of India being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction be set-aside and quashed. ii) the order date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 17.02.2014 by virtue of which it would be exempted. The copy of the submission dated 12.12.2023 is Annexure-3 to the writ application. 6. It is submitted that notwithstanding categorical submissions, the respondent no. 1 held that the payment received by the petitioner would fall under the head of "taxable service". Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 imposed Service Tax amounting to Rs. 60,88,607/- under section 73(2), equivalent penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(1)(a), penalty of Rs. 20,000/- in contravention of section 70 of Finance Act 1994 read with section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 and penalty of Rs. 60,200/- under Section 77(1)(c)(ii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Sheet/Profit & Loss Accounts for the said period but the work order for relevant period were not provided by them. Hence, in absence of work order for relevant period, payment received against taxable services which reflects in their Form 26AS for the relevant period cannot be co-related with the payment regarding rendering of the exempted services as claimed by the Noticee. Hence, I find that the documents provided by the said noticee are not enough/sufficient for granting them the benefit of exemption under claimed notification from payment of Service Tax on the consideration received in lieu of providing taxable services during the aforesaid period. Therefore, I find that they have provided taxable services which neither falls under an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility to the same, no benefit of abatement under any notification can be extended to them. The burden of proving the eligibility to the notification lies on the assessee/party who is claiming exemption. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal 2010 (260) E.L.T 3(SC 5 Member) has held that a party claiming exemption has to establish that he is eligible for exemption contained in the notification i.e. the burden of proof is on him. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Metal Industries Vs Collector of Customs, Bombay 1988 (36) E.L.T 369(SC) observed- "The burden is on the party who claims exemption, to prove the facts that entitled him to exemption." Recently in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax including Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swatch Bharat Cess total amounting Rs. 60,88,607 /- (Rs. Sixty Lakhs Eighty Eight thousand Six Hundred and Seven only) for the period from 2016-2017 (Oct-March) to 2017-2018 (upto June, 2017) which appears to be recoverable from the petitioner along with interest. 12. It is the aforementioned Sub Paragraph 'E' under Paragraph '5' of the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 3 which has been pointed out to us by Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General. It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India has categorically stated that in the tender document, the approved rate of transportation is inclusive of all taxes including GST. It is submitted that infact, the petitioner is engaged in undu....