TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Appellant was registered under composition scheme and as per Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 provides option to pay service tax @ 4% of the gross amount charged for the works contract. 3. The Appellant's main business was Construction i.e. execution of Original Work Contracts where it was pleaded that service tax is payable on 40% of the value of work contract as per provision of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Rules, 2006 (the Rules), and has provided the services and service tax as follows in disputed year: Bill Date Invoice Amount Service Tax on billing Amount Service tax on free Material Supplied Total Service tax 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating Authority in Order-In-Original dated 31.03.2023 has dropped the demand of Rs. 7,82,294/- and confirmed only a demand calculated on finishing work payable at 70% of the value of work contract for Rs.4,21,236, which is incorrect. 7. In the impugned Appellate order dated 22.11.2023, applying the same set of facts and analysis of Order-In-Original, the appeal has been dismissed with application of Section 73 (1) and extended period and thereby penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Respondent justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI, (2023) 10 Centax 57 (Mad.), while quashing assessment order Madras High Court, has held as under:- 'As per the said rule 2 ii A, if the petitioner is considered as individual, the respondent ought to impose only 40%. Hence the respondent has not granted the abatement of 60% provided for the work contract. If the said rule is applied then the respondents not empowered to impose 100% tax.' 13. I find that the SCN is bad in law as being issued solely on the basis of public document like ITR. As per the SCN, difference between ITR and ST-3 Return was for Rs. 80,23,534/-. As per the data received from Income Tax Department, total sales of service was Rs. 80,23,534/-. As per Form 26AS stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, but this would not mean that the assessee has willfully suppressed facts. To invoke the extended period of limitation, at least one of the five necessary elements must be established and their existence cannot be presumed merely because the assessee is operating under self assessment. If some duty escapes assessment, the officers of the department can always call upon the assessee to submit further documents and he may also conduct an enquiry. In fact when an audit is conducted, the officers of the audit team scrutinize the records and, therefore, notice should be issued within the stipulated time from the date the audit was conducted. Even otherwise, merely because facts came to light only during the audit does not prove that there is a....