Case Law Details
Sumeru Builders Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Section 67(2) clearly provided for treating the amount charged by the service provider as inclusive of service tax payable unless it is specifically mentioned in the documents. In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the department’s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended. If we consider the facts in this background, we find that the appellant discharged the entire service tax along with interest soon after the same was pointed out and in this circumstances the benefit of Section 73(3) should not have been denied.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal has been filed by M/s. Sumeru Builders against confirmation of demand of service tax and imposition of penalty.
2. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant argued that the appellant had no intention to evade any service tax. The appellants were at the material time engaged in building of residential complex and in terms of clarification issued by CBEC Circular No. 108/02/2009-ST-F.No. 137/12/2006-CX.4 dated 29.01.2009 they were exempted from the payment of service tax in the capacity of “Builders”. He pointed out that the Finance Act was amended in 2010 and with effect from 01.07.2010 the liability to pay service tax arose on builders. He pointed out that they took registration on 06.08.2010. He pointed out that they had certain doubts regarding liability of builder to pay service tax and therefore, they did not immediately start paying service tax. He pointed out that the summons were issued to the appellant in the month of April, 2011 and issue regarding payment of service tax on the advance received by the appellant was raised in the said proceedings. The appellant voluntarily discharged service tax amounting to Rs.13,71,476/- along with interest of Rs.47,925/-, late fee of Rs.2,000/- on 18.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 through various challans. He argued that they had also filed ST-3 returns on 20.4.2011.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
