The court held that Form 26AS alone may be insufficient to establish a claim for service tax exemption on works contracts; the assessing authority is justified in requiring further documentary evidence, such as running bills, to verify the nature of the transactions.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the assessment Proceedings of the 1st respondent, passed in 010 No - NLR -AC-13-2023-24-ADJN- ST, Dated 12.04.2024 served on 22.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) for levy of service tax on Works contract services provided to the 4th and 5th respondents for the tax period Apnl-2016 to June-2017, is contrary to the exemption granted at entry No. 12A Notification No. 25/20121 -Service tax dated 20.06.2012 inserted Vide Notification No.9/2016-ST dt. 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-2), and more particularly is not a service as per interpretation at Sec. 65(B)(44) of Service Tax -CHAPTER-V of Finance Act 1994(herein after referred to as the Act) and without considering the letter of objections dt. 09.12.2021 (Annexure P- 3), filed by the petitioner is against to principles of natural justice, as arbitrary, barred by limitation of time and without jurisdiction. Hence, the proceedings of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned Proceedings of the 1st Respondent, in 010 No - NLR -AC-13-2023- 24-ADJN-ST, Dated 12.04.2024 served on 22.05.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition, as otherwise, the petitioner would be put to severe loss and hardship

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K ADI SIVA VARA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D NAGARAJA KUMARI

2. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region

3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

The Court made the following order:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner is a contractor who executes works contract given by various authorities as well as sub-contracts given by the main contractor. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax , who is arrayed as the 1st respondent herein had initiated proceedings, under the Service Tax regime, contained in the Finance Act, 1994, for the period 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, on the basis of Form 26AS, which was available with the Income-tax Department, setting out the TDS deducted, by various persons, in relation to payments made to the petitioner. The 1st respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing and opportunity to place all the relevant records, to the petitioner, had passed an order of assessment, dated 12.04.2024, bringing to tax the turnover of the petitioner for the said period. Aggrieved by this order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent had sought to levy service tax on the turnovers of the petitioner on the ground that they are services of works contract in relation to immovable property which are taxable. The petitioner, contended that all the works, which are the subject matter of the assessment, are the works which the petitioner either contracted with the local bodies or works which had been awarded to him, by way of sub contracts, by the main contractor, who had undertaken similar works in the local bodies. The petitioner contended that all the services would be exempt by virtue of entry 12 and entry 29H of notification No.12 of 2012, dated 17.03.2012.

3. The 1st respondent rejected these claims on the ground tha