Page 190 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

108 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
ST-3 return filed by the assessee for the period October-March, 2008
shows that an amount of Rs. 5,50,83,066/- has been shown under
the sub-head amount billed for exempted service other than export.
The assessee has contended that since it has shown the amount in
the ST-3 return, no demand on the same can be issued after a period
of one year. Showing the amount in ST-3 return does not mean that
it has not suppressed the fact and no demand can be issued on the
same after a period of one year. In fact, the assessee has to show the
correct status of the amount. The assessee in the ST-3 return has
misstated the fact by showing the amount of Rs. 5,50,83,066/- as ex-
empted service. Hence, the demand for including the amount of Rs.
5,50,83,066/- has correctly been issued.
8. The Commissioner, therefore, passed the following order :-
“(1) I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 75,04,288/-
against M/s. Hazi A.P. Bava & Co. Plot No. 8, Road No. 3, Jain Col-
ony, New Bhupalpura, Udaipur and order for recovery of the same
from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
(2) I order for recovery of interest on Rs. 75,04,288/- at the prevailing
rates from M/s. Hazi A.P. Bava & Co. Plot No. 8, Road No. 3, Jain
Colony, New Bhupalpura, Udaipur under Section 75 of the Finance
Act, 1994.
(3) I impose a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day up to 17-4-2006 and w.e.f.
18-4-2006 Rs. 200/- per day for the period during which such failure
contained at the rate of 2% of the amount of Service Tax due, per
month, whichever is higher, till the date of actual payment of out-
standing service tax amount outstanding upon M/s. Hazi A.P. Bava
& Co. Udaipur under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944.
(4) I impose a penalty of Rs. 75,04,288/- upon M/s. Hazi A.P. Bava &
Co. Plot No. 8, Road No. 3, Jain Colony, New Bhupalpura, Udaipur
under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, benefit of re-
duced penalty of 25% as per proviso to Section 78 ibid, is available
to the assessee subject to the condition that service tax demand of
Rs. 75,04,288/- and the interest payable thereon under Section 75, is
paid within 30 days from the date of communication of this order
and further subject to the condition that the benefit of reduced pen-
alty (25% on Rs. 75,04,288/-) shall be available if the amount of pen-
alty so determined has also been paid within the period of 30 days
from the communication of this order.”
9. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that :-
(i) The whole demand against the appellant is based on an assumption
that the income from supply of cranes and mobilization/transport
of labourers arises out of a common work order for erection of
plants, even though the income from supply of cranes and mobiliza-
tion/transport of labour is from a different activity under a separate
work order and has no relation at all to the work orders issued for
erection of plants. The said income, therefore, cannot be added to
the value of taxable service;
(ii) There is no evidence on the record to establish that the income de-
rived from supply of cranes and mobilization/transport of labour is
in connection with the work orders issued to the appellant for erec-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  190