TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d loss account statements showed that there was a difference between the service tax paid by the appellant and service tax that should have been paid as per the receipts indicated in Form 26AS and other books of accounts. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 20.08.2019 [SCN] proposing recovery of Rs. 14,39,930/- as service tax under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Act] for the period 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 (upto June). It was also proposed to recover interest under section 75 of the Act and to impose penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act and to levy a late fee of Rs. 15,800/- under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 [Rules] 2. The appellant resisted the proposals and after consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before 01.03.2015 and accordingly the demand was reduced by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the appellant could not produce any document to show that the services were exempted after 01.03.2015 also. During 2014-2015 the appellant had provided works contract services to the Government of Madhya Pradesh but had not paid the service tax. After considering the applicability of reverse charge under Notification No. 30/2012ST dated 20.06.2012, the liability on the taxable portion was held sustainable as the appellant had not produced any documents to claim exemption. For the year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 the Adjudicating Authority allowed admissible abatement in respect of original works contract. The net effect of all these was the reducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the benefit of exemption from this demand. The sole contention of the appellant before this Tribunal is that the appellant was ignorant of the changes in the law. This is not an acceptable excuse. Service tax was clearly not paid or short paid on the services which the appellant had rendered. For this reason, the demand of service tax needs to be upheld along with interest and penalties. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and we find that the sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not aware of the changes to the exemption notification and hence had not paid service tax. Therefore, it is his submission that the appellant had no intention to evade or suppress the value....