TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax liability for the period under consideration as is also mentioned in the show cause notice is not in dispute. The details of the service tax already paid by the party are given in the Annexure A to the show cause notice. The amount of service tax as determined/ assessed, and paid by the party, has, therefore wrongly been included for the demand of service tax under section 73 (1) of the Act. In case any amount of service tax, as self-assessed by the party, was not paid, the same was required to be recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 73 (1B) of the Act which also puts a bar on the issue of the show cause notice in respect of any such amount in default. 4.1 The party submitted, that for 2011-12 they provided services to M/s Amrapali Saphire Dev. Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Amrapali Silicon Pvt. Ltd for which they received an amount of Rs.3,83,302/- and Rs. 49,25,476/- respectively. They claimed exemption of Rs. 10 lakh under Notification No. 08/2008-ST dated 01.03.2008 and stated that they had not charged/received Service tax on the amount of Rs.3,83,302/. The remaining amount of Rs. 49,25,476/- charged to M/s Amrapali Silicon Pvt. Ltd was, however, inclusiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim that an amount of Rs. 54,005/- which was included in the amount shown in 26AS for 2012-13 represented the expenses incurred by the service receiver on their behalf and the same should not be considered for calculation of service tax, is not acceptable due to the reasons mentioned in the foregoing para. 4.4 For the year 2014-15, it was submitted/ stated that, during this period, they received Free of Cost ('FOC', in short) material valued at Rs.9,30,73,982/-, from the service recipient. This amount had been shown in ST-3 return. Being FOC material, the same was neither reflected in Form 26AS nor in P & L account. They, therefore, argued that service tax on the value of the FOC material and on amount Rs.5,60,31,885/- received by them from the service receiver against work contract should be calculated after abatement of 60% (under Notification 24/2012). Out of the service tax so payable, their liability, being a proprietorship firm, was to the extent of 50% of service tax in terms of reverse charge mechanism (RCM', in short) under Notification No. 30/2012. The contention of the party has substance and merit and the same is, therefore, accepted. As far as lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4-15 as discussed and ascertained above comes to Rs. 1,82,95,956. The party has already paid Rs. 1,50,06,235/- as their self-assessed service tax for which no demand under section 73 (1) is maintainable. This amount of service tax as self-assessed and paid by the party is therefore debited from the amount payable by them. The balance amount of service tax short-paid comes to Rs. 32,89,721/-. As the party failed to disclose their correct service tax liability and did not pay the service tax on the considerations received against the taxable services provided by them; failed to include, and declare in their ST-3 returns, the amounts said to be the expenditure incurred by the service receivers on their behalf, the amount of service tax short-paid amounting to Rs.32,89,721/-is liable to be demanded and recovered by invoking proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act. This in turn renders the party liable for penal action under Section 78 ibid. 4.6 About proposal for imposition of penalty for non-filing/ late filing of the ST-3 returns, it was contended that, for the period April-11 to Sept-11, and April-12 to june-12, ST-3 returns were filed within the due date in the light of the B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns. 5. I drop the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 18,357/ (Rs. Eighteen thousand three hundred fifty seven only) made under Rule 14 of the CCR. 6. The adjudged/confirmed amounts, as above, along with the applicable interest be paid forthwith by the party M/s Nandan Constructions, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad." 3. On appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide Final Order No.72790 of 2018 dated 06.12.2018 in Service Tax Appeal No.70293 of 2017 observed as under:- "After hearing both the sides, we find that the service tax demand stands confirmed against the appellant for the year 2011-15. The same is in respect of two categories i.e. 'Manpower Supply Service' and 'Construction Services'. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not disputing the confirmation of demand to the extent of Rs.27,329/- for the year 2011-12. In respect of balance years, he submits that the demand under Manpower Supply System has to be re-quantified inasmuch as in terms of Notification No.30/2012-ST, 25% of service tax has to be paid by the service provider and the balance 75% is required to be paid by the service recipient. The Adjudicating Aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax Rules, 1994 for delay in filing of ST-3 returns. (v) I drop the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 18,357/- (Rs. Eighteen thousand Three hundred Fifty-Seven only) made under Rule 14 of the CCR. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant made the following submissions:- (i) The Appellant is engaged in providing Works Contract Service and Manpower Labour Supply Services for various builders. (ii) A SCN dated 10.05.2016 was issued and the matter travelled upto the Tribunal, which was remanded back vide Final order No.72790 of 2018 dated 06.12.2018. The matter was remanded back for re-quantification of demand under different heads- Works Contract and Manpower Supply for giving benefit of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. (iii) The appellant was providing Works Contract Services. On comparison between 26AS and Balance Sheet, higher of the two values was taken to be taxable. (iv) ST-3 returns were filed by the appellant and admittedly Service Tax of Rs.1.50 Cr was duly deposited. (v) Subsequently, matter was re-adjudicated vide Denovo Order-In-Original. ....