Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Balaji Construction vs Ujjain on 3 July, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI.
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO.4
Service Tax Appeal No.55099 of 2023
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.10/COMMR/ST/UJN/2021-22 dated 12.11.2022
passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain Commissionerate, Ujjain
(M.P.)]
M/s. Balaji Construction Appellant
115, Balaji Construction, Shashtri Nagar,
Khandwa (M.P.)-450001
VERSUS
The Commissioner CGST & Central Excise,
Ujjain Commissionerate, Ujjain (M.P) Respondent
29, Bharatpuri Administrative Area, Ujjain (M.P.)
APPEARANCE:
Shri A.K. Batra and Ms. Sakshi Khanna, Chartered Accountants for the
Appellant
Shri Anand Narayan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
DATE OF HEARING:23.04.2025
DATE OF DECISION:03.07.2025
FINAL ORDER NO.50964/2025
HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA:
The present appeal is filed by M/s. Balaji Construction1 against
the impugned Order-in-Original No.10/COMMR/ST/UJN/2021-22 dated
12.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise,
Ujjain wherein the demand of service tax of Rs.3,49,01,987/- was
1. the Appellant
2
ST/55099/2023
confirmed alongwith interest and penalty under section 75 & 78 of the
Finance Act, 1994.
2. The brief facts of the case are that based on an enquiry against
the appellant on the basis of third party data received from DGARM
which suggested a difference in taxable receipts reflected in the
ITR/26AS vis-a-vis ST-3 returns. Based on further investigations, a
Show Cause Notice was issued demanding service tax amounting
Rs.3,49,01,987/- alongwith interest and proportionate penalty. Vide
the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand
alongwith interest and imposed equivalent penalty. The appellant is
before this Tribunal in appeal.
3. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant is a proprietor of
M/s. Balaji Construction and is engaged in the business of construction
of roads, dams and bridges for Government and Local Authorities.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was rendering services
of construction of roads for Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development
Authority2, Public Works Department3, and Nagar Nigam, Burhanpur.
In addition, the appellant was also rendering services of construction
of dams and bridges for Water Resource Department4.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel submitted that the demand
confirmed for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 was legally
untenable, as it was for the period of GST. The Department's demand
on gross revenue for 2017-18 fails to acknowledge that the Finance
2. MPRRDA
3. PWD
4. WRD
3
ST/55099/2023
Act 1994 had ceased to apply after 30.06.2017. Consequently, the
excess demand of Rs.57,41,335/- was legally unsustainable.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the department had
travelled beyond the scope of statutory provisions as the demand had
been confirmed for the period beyond the five years of limitation.
Hence, the demand amounting to Rs.1,18,34,928/- for the period
01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 was liable to be dropped on this short
ground alone.
6. Learned counsel contended that the Department had erred in
confirming the demand for the works contract services rendered by it
for MPRRDA, PWD and Nagar Nigam as the same is specifically exempt
from service tax vide entry 13(a) of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST
dated 20.06.2012. The department had acknowledged that the
Appellant was engaged in providing road construction services to the
aforementioned clients. The Adjudicating Authority had also
acknowledged that PWD is the premier agency of Government, Nagar
Nigam is local authority and MPRRDA is also a Government Authority.
Learned counsel stated that Appellant has furnished work orders and
payment certificates for the aforementioned projects. Despite this, the
Department had failed to appreciate that the exemption is granted to
the services which admittedly falls under the subject entry of mega
exemption. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's observation
that the payment certificate does not mention the amount of
consideration for denying the exemption lacked merit. Further, the
Department had failed to appreciate that the work order is awarded for
4
ST/55099/2023
assigning the work and the same cannot be revised for every financial
year, thereby the observations of the Adjudicating Authority that work
order does not pertain to the disputed period is not valid. Therefore,
the demand for Rs. 2,61,96,459/- was not sustainable and is liable to
be dropped.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the Department had erred in
confirming the demand for the Works Contract services rendered for
WRD as the same was specifically exempt from service tax vide entry
12(d) of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. It was an
undisputed fact that WRD is a governmental authority, as
acknowledged by the Department. Learned counsel stated that the
Department had not contested the nature of the work performed by
the Appellant, instead, had described the Appellant's activities in the
impugned order and conceded that it appears to be exempt from
service tax. Nevertheless, the Department had sustained the demand
on the grounds that the work orders issued by WRD to the Appellant
do not pertain to the disputed period, despite the Appellant's work
being exempt in nature. Learned counsel submitted that the work
orders were awarded prior to the disputed period, and since the
service was continuous in nature, it was also rendered during the
disputed period. The Appellant had issued invoices for the work
performed and received consideration from the Government
Department accordingly. The bill and the completion certificate
substantiate the Appellant's claim and establishes a clear link between
the work order, the services rendered, and the consideration received.
5
ST/55099/2023
Thus, service tax demand amounting to Rs.14,03,586/- is liable to be
dropped.
8. Learned counsel submitted that Department had failed to
appreciate that construction of 'Haat Bazaar' was for non-commercial
purposes and therefore the appellant was entitled to claim exemption
from service tax by virtue of entry 12A (a) of mega exemption
notification. It is an undisputed fact, that Rural Engineering Services
(RES) is a governmental authority. Additionally, the construction
services provided by the Appellant were not in dispute. However, the
Department denied exemption to the Appellant on the grounds that
the 'Haat Bazaar' is intended for commercial purposes, despite the
Appellant's services being otherwise eligible for exemption. Learned
counsel submitted that the principal purpose of 'Haat Bazaar' was to
provide a platform for local rural communities to showcase their
products and culture to the public and tourists, thereby promoting
regional heritage. These bazaars are governed by either gram
panchayats or local authorities for smooth functioning and operations
of them. The vendors operating at these bazaars sell their products at
and in most cases below the government-determined Minimum
Support Price (MSP), thereby precluding any profit motive.
Consequently, these bazaars cannot be deemed as commercial trade
venues, as the primary objective is to promote and preserve India's
cultural heritage and artisans, rather than to facilitate profit-driven
transactions. Thus, demand of Rs. 1,22,084/- is liable to be dropped.
6
ST/55099/2023
Learned Counsel relied on Tribunal decision in Kishore Jaiswal vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur5.
9. Learned counsel contended that the department has erred in
confirming the demand for a service tax on the value of material
transferred during execution of works contract. Therefore, the demand
for Rs. 1,66,33,277/- is not sustainable and is liable to be dropped.
10. Learned counsel stated the expenses incurred by the appellant
during the disputed period was as indicated in the table below:
Particulars Expense Amount Demand
Audit Fees/ Consultancy Fees/ Legal 1,50,500 22,575
Fees
Royalty 78,24,777 11,73,717
Freight 6,02,299 90,345
Insurance Premium 10,12,574 1,51,886
Total 95,90,150 14,38,523
10.1 In this context, learned counsel submitted that this fee was paid
by the appellant for audit of books of accounts and professional fees
for sale tax and income tax returns to professionals other than
advocates. Such fees did not include the fee of any legal advocate of
any court, thus not leviable to service tax.
10.2 As regards royalty, learned counsel stated that the royalty
expenses are related to royalty deduction made by the Government
Department from the bill issued by the appellant in respect of
construction work. In the present case, the appellant owned the
crusher and was converting the big stones into 'gitti' for construction
5. Final Order No. 50466/2022 in Service Tax Appeal No.51057 of 2021
dated 19.05.2022
7
ST/55099/2023
of road for which the appellant was paying royalty to the Government.
The said royalty was deducted by the Government from the
construction bills issued by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was
not liable for making payment of service tax under RCM on the same.
10.3 As regards insurance, these expenses are related to the
insurance premium paid by the appellant which was debited in Profit &
loss A/c during the disputed period. The appellant had obtained
certain insurance policies from the insurance companies who had
charged service tax under forward charge and the appellant had paid
the invoice value inclusive of tax to the said companies. The
Department had failed to appreciate the said fact and confirmed the
demand. Hence, the demand for Rs. 1,51,886/- is not tenable.
10.4 The transportation charges were paid for transportation of goods
supplied by the appellant. As per Notification No. 30/2012-ST, a
proprietor is not liable to make payment of service tax under RCM on
GTA services and the said fact is admitted by the Department in its
order as well. Therefore, the demand for Rs. 90,345/- is legally not
sustainable.
11. Learned authorised representative reiterated the finding of the
impugned order that the appellant has provided Service of
construction of road to MPRRDA. He contended that documents did
not reflect the amount paid by the MPRRDA and whether any service
tax had been paid by them. He further submitted that no supporting
bills raised by the appellant had been put forth which would give
detailed information of amount charged by them. Learned authorised
8
ST/55099/2023
representative submitted that the adjudicating authority found that in
the absence of any specific information about payment done by
MPRRDA and bills raised by the party, he has confirmed the demand
proposed in Show Cause notice. In case of service rendered to Public
Works Department, learned authorised representative stated that the
appellant had failed to submit the purported work orders depicting
clear cut mention of the period involved. The adjudicating authority
had held that the work orders were commensurate with the period of
dispute.
12. Learned authorised representative further submitted that certain
amount received from Nagar Nigam, Burhanpur during the period in
dispute was provision of construction of road service. The appellant in
their submission had claimed to have received in Rs.10,50,017/-
during 2016-17 and Rs.4,80,520/- in 2017-18 which was in variance
to the certificate submitted by the appellant. Hence the veracity of
submission of the appellant was doubtful. In case of amount received
from the Water Resource Department division Khandwa and Burhanpur
in support, the appellant has also submitted payment certificate issued
by the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, division
Khandwa and Burhanpur towards construction of dam and water
resources for irrigation works. The payment certificate submitted by
the appellant do not corroborated with the work orders/ agreements
pertaining to Water Resources Department. Learned authorised
representative further contended that in case of construction of HAAT
Bazar, the appellant was claiming exemption for construction of civil
structure for the purpose other than commerce, whereas the definition
9
ST/55099/2023
of HAAT market clearly shows that market was being used for
commercial activity. Hence the services provided by them by way of
construction of haat Bazar were taxable. Learned authorised
representative stated that the taxing statute has to interpreted as per
the words and placed the judgement in Commissioner of Customs
(Import), Mumbai versus M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company &
Ors.6
13. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned
authorised representative for the Department. We find that the
impugned order has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,49,01,987/- along
with interest and imposed penalty on the appellant. The issue for
consideration before us is whether the appellant is liable for service tax
on road construction rendered to Madhya Pradesh Rural Road
Development Authority, Public Works Department, and Nagar Nigam,
Burhanpur. The appellant was also involved in construction of dams
and bridges for the Water Resources Department, MP. A portion of the
demand also relates to liability under reverse charge mechanism.
13.1 The details of the services provided by the appellant and the
relevant work orders is elaborated in the Table below:-
Financial Year 2016-2017
S.No. Name of the Description of Amount Service Tax
Party work (in Rs.) Demand
01 MPRRDA Road construction 5,01,97,802 75,29,670
02 MPRRDA, Road Construction 16,05,259 2,40,789
Burhanpur Work
03 MPRRDA, Road Construction 1,71,72,240 25,75,836
6. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 SUPREME COURT
10
ST/55099/2023
Khargone Work
04 MPRRDA, Betul Road Construction 8,32,151 1,24,823
Work
05 PWD Khandwa Bhakrada, 1,74,31,175 26,14,676
Bamangaon,
Khedikitta & another
road
06 PWD Jasondi Karoli, 5,83,39,263 87,50,889
Burhanpur Jalgaon, Sindhi Basti
road to Renuka
mata mandir road
07 Nagar Nigam Mominpura to slater 10,50,017 1,57,503
Burhanpur house CC road
08 Seema Aanand Sub-contract road 10,00,000 1,50,000
work
09 WRD Scheme - Savali 78,61,238 11,79,186
Burhanpur Talab, Dam
Construction
10 WRD Khandwa Scheme - Ardala 14,96,000 2,24,400
Talab, Dam
construction
11 RES Khandwa Construction of Haat 8,13,895 1,22,084
Bazaar
Total 15,77,99,040 2,36,69,856
Financial Year 2017-18 (Till June-2017)
S.No. Name of the Description of Amount Service Tax
Party work (in Rs.) Demand
01 MPRRDA, Road Construction 1,56,69,022 23,50,353
Khandwa Work
02 MPRRDA, Road Construction 16,892 2,534
Burhanpur Work
03 Nagar Nigam, Mominpura salter 4,80,520 72,078
Burhanpur house CC road
04 PWD Construction of road 89,85,915 13,47,887
Burhanpur
05 MPRRDA, Road Construction 15,92,485 2,38,873
Khargone Work
06 RES Khandwa Construction of Haat 2,70,320 40,548
Bazaar
Total 2,70,15,154 40,52,273
We will consider each of the issues individually:
14. The Department received third party data from the DGARM
regarding the mismatch in the figures reported in the ST-3 returns and
11
ST/55099/2023
the receipts shown in ITR/26AS, based on which the enquiry was
launched and the impugned notice was issued.
15. At the outset, the learned Counsel submitted that the
department has traversed beyond five years in the said show cause
notice. We note that the notice was issued on 20.10.2021 for the
period 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017. It has been submitted that the
demand for the period of 1.4.2016-30.09.2016 is time barred as the
notice should have been issued by 05.10.2010 whereas the said notice
was issued on 2010.2021. In this regard, we reproduce the relevant
clauses of section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, hereinafter:
―SECTION 73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-
levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. --
(1) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been
short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, Central Excise
Officer may, within thirty months from the relevant date, serve
notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has
not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-
paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been
made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the
amount specified in the notice :
Provided that where any service tax has not been levied or paid
or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by
reason of --
(a) fraud; or
(b) collusion; or
(c) wilful mis-statement; or
(d) suppression of facts; or
(e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of
the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of
service tax, by the person chargeable with the service tax or his
agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if,
12
ST/55099/2023
for the words ―thirty months‖, the words ―five years‖ had been
substituted.
Explanation.-- Where the service of the notice is stayed by an
order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in
computing the aforesaid period of thirty months or five years, as
the case may be.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(4B) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of
service tax due under sub-section (2)--
(a) within six months from the date of notice where itis possible
to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1);
(b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to
do so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section
(1) or the proviso to sub-section (4A)].
(5) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to any case
where the service tax had become payable or ought to have been
paid before the 14th day of May, 2003.
(6) For the purposes of this section, ―relevant date‖ means, --
(i) in the case of taxable service in respect of which service tax
has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid
--
(a) where under the rules made under this Chapter, a periodical return, showing particulars of service tax paid during the period to which the said return relates, is to be filed by an assessee, the date on which such return is so filed;
(b) where no periodical return as aforesaid is filed, the last date on which such return is to be filed under the said rules;
(c) in any other case, the date on which the service tax is to be paid under this Chapter or the rules made thereunder;
(ii) in a case where the service tax is provisionally assessed under this Chapter or the rules made there under, the date of adjustment of the service tax after the final assessment thereof;
(iii) in a case where any sum, relating to service tax, has erroneously been refunded, the date of such refund.]‖ 13 ST/55099/2023 15.1 The relevant date for filing of the returns is enumerated in Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which is reproduced below:-
―7. Returns (1)Every assessee shall submit a half yearly return in From ‗ST-3' or ‗ST-3A'or ST3C,(Inserted vide Notification 48/2016 -Service tax) as the case may be, along with a copy of the Form TR-6, in triplicate for the months covered in the half- yearly return. (2)Every assessee shall submit the half yearly return by the 25th of the month following the particular half-year. [Provided that the Form 'ST-3' required to be submitted by the 25th day of October, 2012 shall cover the period between 1st April to 30th June, 2012 only:] [Provided further that the Form ST-3 for the period between the 1st day of July 2012 to the 30th day of September 2012,shall be submitted by the 25th day of March, 2013.].................................‖ 15.2 In the instant case, it is clear that the department had detected the mismatch based on the ST-3 returns, hence the appellant is covered by the 73(6)(i)(a) and the last date for filing of the relevant return for the period is 25.10.2016. As the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2021, the said notice is not time barred, as claimed by the learned Counsel.
16. The learned Counsel has also submitted before us that the demand for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 is not sustainable as the Goods & Services Tax was introduced with effect from 01.07.2017 which subsumed several indirect taxes, including service tax. In this regard, we note that the Finance Act, 1994 for levy of Service Tax has been omitted by Section 173 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is on record that the investigation against the appellant was initiated based on inputs from DGARM. It is on record that the said Directorate General 14 ST/55099/2023 was established with effect from 01.07.2018, as is evident from the portal. Thus, it is apparent that the inquiry or investigation was initiated after implementation of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the demand for the period 01.7.2017 to 31.3.2018 cannot be sustained and is set aside.
17. We now consider the issue relating to the services of road construction provided to the various governmental authorities by the appellant. In this regard, we note that the appellant has claimed the benefit of exemption under entry 13(a) of Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012. The relevant entry is reproduced hereinafter:-
"Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax New Delhi the 20th June, 2012 G.S.R......(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of notification number 12/2012- Service Tax, dated the 17 th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17 th March, 2012, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the following taxable services from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the said Act, namely:- ....................................................................................................................................
13. Services provided by way of construction , erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of,-
(a) a road, bridge, tunnel, or terminal for road transportation for use by general public;15
ST/55099/2023
(b) a civil structure or any other original works pertaining to a scheme under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission or Rajiv Awaas Yojana;
(c) a building owned by an entity registered under section 12 AA of the Income tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) and meant predominantly for religious use by general public;
(d) a pollution control or effluent treatment plant, except located as a part of a factory; or a structure meant for funeral, burial or cremation of deceased;................‖ 17.1 We note that the impugned order has acknowledged that the appellant was receiving money from the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority whose objective was to implement the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, and the PWD and Nagar Nigam. It has also been acknowledged in the said order that all the work orders awarded to the appellant was for construction of road. The adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of exemption because the appellant had failed to provide the work orders indicating the period for the service provided. Further, it has been held that the copy of submissions made by the appellant was not legible, hence the demand has been confirmed. In this context, we note that once it has been acknowledged that the appellant had received work orders from MPRRDA/PWD/Nagar Nigam for construction of roads, the benefit of the aforesaid exemption cannot be denied. It is clear that all roads meant for general public was being constructed by the appellant for the Governmental authorities, more so, when the work orders clearly evidence the same. The impugned order has held that no supporting bills was placed before the revenue authorities to substantiate his claim. However, we find that copy of work orders had been submitted 16 ST/55099/2023 by the appellant. In any case, if there was any doubt regarding the authenticity of the work order, the Department could have verified from the State Government authorities. Instead, the adjudicating authority has simply confirmed the demand, in a routine manner, which cannot be sustained. Hence, this demand is liable to be set aside.
18. We now move on to the second issue relating to service provided towards canal and dam construction for Water Resources Department, State Govt of MP. The relevant entry of the exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST is reproduced below:-
―12. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction , erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of - (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession; (b) a historical monument, archaeological site or remains of national importance, archaeological excavation, or antiquity specified under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958); (c) a structure meant predominantly for use as (i) an educational, (ii) a clinical, or (iii) an art or cultural establishment; (d) canal, dam or other irrigation works; (e) pipeline, conduit or plant for (i) water supply (ii) water treatment, or (iii) sewerage treatment or disposal; or (f) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or the use of their employees or other persons specified in the Explanation 1 to clause 44 of section 65 B of the said Act;...............‖ 18.1 We note that it is an acknowledged fact that the Water Resources Department is a Government authority involved in water resources of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The impugned order has 17 ST/55099/2023 confirmed the demand on the ground that the work orders do not pertain to the period of dispute. In this context, the Ld Counsel has submitted that the work order was awarded prior to the disputed period, and as it was a continuous service, the same was rendered during the period of dispute as well. We note that the appellant has submitted the construction bill and the completion certificate in this regard. We are of the opinion that the Department has not established that the said work orders along with the construction bill and completion certificate does not pertain to the period of dispute, hence the said demand cannot be sustained.
19. We now address the demand of service tax on construction of 'Haat Bazaar'. It has been submitted before us that this service was provided to Rural Engineering Services, which is a governmental authority. The exemption under entry 12 (a) has been denied on the grounds that the Haat Bazaar is intended for commercial purposes.
The exemption under this entry is as follows:-
―12. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction , erection,commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of -
(a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any otherbusiness or profession;........................................................................‖ The learned Counsel has submitted that the Haat Bazaar provides a platform for rural communities to showcase their products and culture to the public and tourists. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kishore Jaiswal vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 18 ST/55099/2023 Raipur [2022(64)GSTL 220(Tri-Del)]. We note that the said decision has extended the benefit of the exemption as the said bazaar was used for sale of agricultural produce as exempted vide entry no. 14(d) of the Notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012. In the instant case, the Haat Bazaar was for promotion and sale of local goods for commercial purposes. Hence we hold that same is not covered by the exemption claimed by the appellant under Notification no. 25/2012-ST.
Hence, the demand of Rs 1,22,084/- is upheld.
20. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the appellant had provided works contract service during this period, wherein there was transfer of materials, and were eligible for abatement on the same. In this context, we note that we have upheld the demand on construction of Haat Bazaar. The benefit of abatement, if any, can be extended to the appellant based on the documents and other evidence that should be provided by the appellant to the original authority. Hence, we propose to remand this issue to the adjudicating authority for re- consideration.
21. As regards the demand on Reverse Charge on Audit fees/ Legal Fees/Consultancy fees/ Royalty/Insurance and Freight, we note that the impugned order has noted that the appellant did not produce any document to substantiate their claim that no tax was leviable on RCM basis. We are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to remand this issue as well to the adjudicating authority for giving an opportunity to the appellant to submit all relevant documents to 19 ST/55099/2023 establish the exact nature of services that was rendered to him in this regard.
22. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following order:-
(i) The demand for the period 1.7.2017-31.3.2018 is set aside
(ii) The demand for the works contract services rendered to MPRDA, PWD and Nagar Nigam is exempted under Notification No. 25/2012-St dated 20.6.2012, Hence the demand on this account is set aside.
(iii) The demand for works contract services rendered to Water Resources Department is exempted under Notification no. 25/2012. Consequently, the demand cannot be sustained.
(iv) The demand on Haat Bazaar is confirmed, however the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for recalculation of demand on submission of documents by the appellant for seeking abatement.
(v) The demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for giving an opportunity to the appellant to submit all relevant documents to substantiate his claim.
23. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the demand as indicated at (i), (ii) and
(iii) is set aside. The demand with reference to Haat Bazaar is confirmed. However, the appeal is allowed by way of remand for the purpose as indicated in (iv) and (v) above.
(Pronounced in the open court on 03/07/2025) (DR. RACHNA GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Archana