NT Construction Prop Nirnjan Prasand Singh Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopalt
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 823 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 6-3-2018
Appeal No. ST\/4043\/2012- [DB] – ST\/A\/51633\/2018-CU[DB]
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Pulkit, Advocate for the appellant
\nShri Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent
\nPer S.K. Mohanty
\nThe appellant is engaged in the activities of providing the taxable service, under the category of Maintenance and Repair. On scrutiny of the records maintained by appellant, it was observed by the Service Tax Department that during the period February, 2004 to December, 2008, the appellant had received the mon<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n m only for Rs. 50,20,540\/-. Thus, the contentions of the appellant is that on the receipted amount towards the taxable service, the appellant should only be liable to pay Service Tax. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" NT Construction Prop Nirnjan Prasand Singh Versus CGST C.E & C. C-BhopaltService Tax2018 (5) TMI 823 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 6-3-2018Appeal No. ST\/4043\/2012- [DB] – ST\/A\/51633\/2018-CU[DB]Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Pulkit, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the … Continue reading “NT Construction Prop Nirnjan Prasand Singh Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopalt”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Heard both sides.
\n4. We find that in the reply to show cause notice, the appellant had specifically stated that during the disputed period, it had received Rs. 50,20,540\/- and discharged the Service Tax liability thereon. However, on perusal of the impugned order and also the adjudication order, we find that the authorities below have not discussed the submissions made by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice. For ascertaining the correct tax liability, since the submissions of the appellant were required to be considered, we are of the view<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n