CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 3 Service Tax Appeal No. 50608 Of 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM(AUDIT)/003/2020 dated 28.05.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise, Raipur]

M/s Deepa Construction : Appellant Dantewada, Chattisgarh Vs Commissioner of Central Goods : Respondent Service Tax, Central Excise, Raipur Tikrapara, Dhamtari Road, Raipur Chattisgarh APPEARANCE:

Shri Atul Gupta, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 50199/2026 Date of Hearing:01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s Deepa Construction¹ to assail the impugned Order-in-Original No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM(AUDIT)/003/2020 dated 28.05.2020 wherein the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,83,27,069/- along with applicable interest under Section 75, penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each under section 77(1) & 77(2) and equivalent penalty under section 78. 1 the appellant

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm which started in 2004. The Department received information that scrutiny of the TDS/ITR data of the appellant revealed that the firm had received total an amount of Rs. 5,00,11,867/- during the year 2013-14 and Rs. 7,59,27,497/- during the year 2014-15, towards supply of taxable services. Thereafter a letter dated 01.10.2018 was issued to the appellant asking them to submit the details of payment of service tax with relevant records with exemptions claimed, if any. However, no response was received from the appellant. On completion of the enquiry, a show cause notice dated 17.10.2018 was issued proposing a demand of Rs. 1,55,66,105/- along with interest and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78. Thereafter, an addendum was also issued vide F.No.V(ST)15-339/ADC/RPR/2018 /ADJ/4088 dated 18.04.2019 for the subsequent period of 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto June 2017) under which an additional amount of service tax of Rs. 1,27,60,964/- including cess was demanded. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 28.05.2020 confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,83,27,069/- along with interest and the imposition of penalties under section 77 & 78.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand had been confirmed on the ground that the service tax had been paid in the partners service tax registration and not in the Partnership firm's registration is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. He contended that the appellant was providing the services of Construction, execution of works contract mainly to NDMC, TRF Ltd (a Tata Enterprise), Dee Tech Project Ltd. The Appellant had been duly paying tax for the services provided on the partial reverse charge basis as per rule 2A, however the payment of the Service tax was made in service tax registration which was taken on the PAN of the partner Shri K. Surendran Nair. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of taking the registration, it was on the suggestion of the officials of the department that the service tax registration was taken using the PAN of Shri K. Surendra Nair. However, the payment of tax has not been disputed by the Commissioner, and the only dispute is with respect to the payment of service tax in the service tax registration taken on Shri K. S. Nair‟s PAN.

3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that since 2005, the appellant had been using the same service tax registration under the same PAN which has not been disputed by the department. Learned counsel stated that no issue since 2005 had been raised by the department regarding the service tax registration (ST-2) despite the fact that the appellant had continuously utilized the same service tax registration for payment of service and oth