SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 7

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical)
Matrix Design Works – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida – Respondent
FINAL ORDER NO.70843/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Utsav Sahgal
For the Respondents: Santosh Kumar

SEZ Act Section 26 exemption for services to SEZ units overrides service tax levy under Finance Act; procedural non-compliance in notifications does not defeat substantive statutory exemption due to Section 51 overriding effect.

Headnote:(A) Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65B(44), 66B, 73(1), 75, 77(1)(c), 78, 93, 142, 174 - Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 - Sections 26, 51 - Service Tax - Exemption for services provided to SEZ units - Demand of service tax Rs.21,04,914/-, interest and penalties confirmed by lower authorities on differential value between ITR and ST-3 returns for FY 2015-16 & 2016-17 - Appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.17/2011-ST for services to SEZ unit but denied for non-compliance with procedural requirements (Forms A-1, A-2, A-3) - Held: Section 26 of SEZ Act provides exemption from service tax on taxable services to SEZ for authorised operations, subject only to terms prescribed under SEZ Rules, 2006 (Rule 22); Section 51 gives overriding effect notwithstanding inconsistent provisions in other laws; procedural conditions in service tax notifications cannot deny statutory exemption under SEZ Act - Burden of proof on claimant but exemption substantive, not defeated by procedural lapses - Demand, interest and penalties set aside. (Paras 4.3, 4.4)

(B) Taxation - Exemption notifications - Interpretation - Standalone exemptions under special legislation (SEZ Act) not subject to conditions in general tax law notifications (Finance Act); non-compliance with forms/declarations irrelevant where SEZ Rules complied with; no legal authority to levy tax absent charging section not overridden by SEZ Act. (Paras 4.3, 9.1-9.3)

Facts of the case:
Discrepancies noted between income tax returns and service tax returns led to SCN demanding service tax on differential value, confirmed by OIO and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-submission of procedural documents for SEZ exemption claim.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed; no findings on limitation as decided on merits.

Issues: Whether service tax demand sustainable despite SEZ exemption claim; whether procedural non-compliance under service tax notification defeats exemption under SEZ Act; applicability of extended limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under Section 26 SEZ Act overrides Finance Act provisions per Section 51; conditions in service tax notifications (procedural) cannot restrict substantive SEZ exemption; levy impermissible without authority post-override, fulfilling Article 265 Constitution.

Result: Appeal allowed.

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-001-APP-342-24-25 dated 13/02/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida. By the impugned order following has been held:-

Order

In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, the instant appeal No.54/ST/Noida/APPL/NOI/2024-25 dated 03.05.2024 filed by M/s Matrix Design Works, E-84, Sector-41, Noida (U.P.)-201301 falls to succeed and consequently rejected. Order-in-Original No.228/AC/ST/TPI/CGST/Div-I/Noida/2023-24 dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, HQ, Technical, CGST Noida is upheld being legal and proper.‖

2.1 Appellant is registered with the Department under the Registration No.AFXPD9408HSD001 for providing taxable services as defined by Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 66B of the Act.

2.2 On the basis of third party information was received from Income Tax Department, discrepancies were noted on comparison of the ITR and ST-3 returns leading in payment of service tax as indicated in table below:-

2.3 Inquiries were made from the appellant and they were directed to furnish the details of payment of service tax along with copies of ST-3 returns & reason of difference of value as shown in service tax return & Income Tax return/Form 26AS. However, no response was received.

2.4 Show cause notice dated 26.03.2021 was issued to the appellant, asking them to show cause as to why:-

a. The Service Tax amounting to Rs.21,04,914/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Fourteen Only) should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017.

b. The due interest on the amount of Service Tax mentioned at (a) above should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017.

c. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 for failure to pay service tax & suppressing the facts and value of taxable service with intent to evade payment of Service Tax.

d. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 for not maintaining proper records.

2.5 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original dated 29.02.2024 by holding as follows:-

ORDER

(I) I confirm the demand of Service Tax amount of Rs.21,04,914/-((Rupees Twenty One Lakh Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Only) including Cesses, and order to recover the same from M/s.Matrix Design Works, E-84, Sector-41, Noida- 201301 M/s Kuldip Kumar Sabhaerwal, 263, Sector- 37, Noida, Noida Complex, Gautam Budha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017.

(II) I order to recover the interest as applicable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 from the noticee on the above said amount of Service Tax as confirmed at (I) above.

(III) I impose a penalty of Rs.21,04,914/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen Only)and order to recover the same from the noticee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. If the amount as determined under Section 73 above is paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order along with the interest payable thereon as per Section 75, penalty will be only 25% of the service tax determined under Section 73. The benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only if the amount of penalty so determined is also been paid within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the order.

(IV) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1944 r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top