2011 (6) TMI 185 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Business Auxiliary Services - Scrutiny - Difference in assessable value - In the absence of any evidence of providing of services and receipt of extra consideration, the confirmation of demand on the above sole ground, is not justified - The appellants have contended that they are able to co-relate the bills with the figures reflected in ST-3 returns and are able to explain the differences on account of the time gap between the receipt of consideration and Profit & Loss Account maintained by them for different years - Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Discrepancy in service tax demand due to differences in income figures between Profit and Loss account and ST-3 returns.

In this case, the appellants, engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Services, faced a service tax demand due to a variance in income figures reported in their Profit and Loss account and ST-3 returns for the year 2005-06. The Revenue alleged that the difference indicated suppression of service value. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of a service tax demand of Rs. 59,812 by the lower authorities, prompting the present appeal.

During the proceedings, the appellants argued that the differences in figures were due to the time gap between billing and actual receipt of payment, following the mercantile system of accounting. They contended that without evidence of providing services or receiving extra consideration, the demand confirmation solely based on the discrepancy was unjustified. The appellants presented bills, ST-3 returns, and relied on legal precedents to support their position, emphasizing that entries in the books of accounts do not necessarily imply receipt of payments.

The Tribunal observed that the primary basis for the demand confirmation was the figures in the Profit and Loss account. With no additional evidence of service provision or excess consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' explanation regarding the differences arising from the timing of transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, considering the legal principles established in the referenced judgments. The appellants were granted the opportunity to clarify the variations and substantiate their perspective, resulting in the appeal being allowed through remand.