TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not discharged Service Tax for the services rendered by them during the period October 2009 to September 2014 a Show Cause Notice was issued on 17.02.2014. The Adjudicating authority after due process confirmed the demand, interest and penalty. Therefore, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that CWC is entrusted with general responsibilities of initiating, coordinating and furthering in consultation with the State Governments towards conservation and utilization of water resources throughout the country. Being an organization under the Ministry of Water Resources, CWC has presence in all the states of India. The Appellant has undertaken survey and investigation work in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Government through NEC. 5. The Ld.Counsel relies on Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007. In the said Circular, he points out to Reference Code No.99901/23.08.2007 to submit that the services rendered by CWC is not liable for Service Tax. 6. He further submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 17.02.2015 for the services said to have been rendered during the period 2009-12 is time barred. The Appellant is working under the Ministry of Water Resources. They carried a bona fide belief that they are not required to pay any Service Tax for the activities carried on by them. Even when by mistake in respect of four invoices they have charged the Service Tax on NTPC, the same has not been paid by them on the ground that there i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, this amount cannot be taken as any consideration received by the Appellant for providing any taxable service. Hence, the confirmed demand of Rs.83,12,000/- is set aside on this ground itself. 11. Coming to the consideration received from NTPC, it is seen that the Appellant initially being under the impression that the service is taxable, has charged the Service Tax. However, as per Annexure-(XII) of the Show Cause Notice reproduced above, it is seen that NTPC has not paid the Service Tax. 12. We have also gone through the Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007. The relevant portion is reproduced below: Reference Code Issue Clarification ..... ..... ..... 999.01/23.08.07 Sovereign/public authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of levy of service tax. 13. It is seen that the Appellant is basically performing sovereign function of collecting the amount on behalf of the Appellant and they do not retain any amount, but remit the same to the Government. Hence, we find that the confirmed demand on account of transactions with NTPC is also legally not sustainable on merits 14. We also find force in the Appellant's argument about the time bar aspect. The Appellant being part of the Ministry of Water Resources could have entertained a bona fide belief that they are performing the sovereign function and hence they are not required to pay Service Tax. It is seen that the major portion of the demand is on account of the grants given by NEC to the Appellant for runni....