Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 813 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax on the basis of difference between the value of the taxable services as reported in ST-3 return and as given in the balance sheet - non inclusion of value of material - extended period of limitation - levy of penalty - Held that - there would be justification in the appellant s plea that during the period of dispute, on account of conflicting decisions on this issue, there was a doubt and, therefore, based on a series of the judgment of the Tribunal on this issue, they paid the service tax only on the net value of the taxable service and it is this value which they reflected in the ST-3 returns. If this is so, the extended period of recovery of service tax would not be applicable and penalty under Section 78 also would not be attracted. But this point has nowhere been discussed either in the order-in-original or in the order-in-appeal. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
- Discrepancy in service tax payment due to difference in valuation between ST-3 Returns and balance sheet. - Applicability of extended recovery period and penalty under Section 78. - Interpretation of conflicting judgments on service tax valuation for photography services. Analysis: 1. The case involves a dispute regarding the payment of service tax by the appellants for the period 2004-05. The appellant paid service tax on the value excluding the materials used, which they reflected in the ST-3 Returns. However, their balance sheet showed the full turnover, including the value of materials, leading to an objection by the Audit Party for short payment of service tax. 2. The appellant communicated their tax liability according to them, but the department sought clarification on the short paid service tax. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for confirming the demand of short paid service tax along with interest and penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand, imposed penalties under Section 76 and 78, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The appellant contended that the difference in valuation between ST-3 Returns and balance sheet was due to conflicting judgments on whether service tax should be paid on the gross amount charged or net amount after excluding material value. They argued that due to the uncertainty during the dispute period, the extended recovery period and penalty under Section 78 should not apply. 4. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not address the appellant's plea regarding the valuation difference and the impact of conflicting judgments on the service tax payment. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on whether the valuation difference was due to the cost of materials used in photography services. 5. The Tribunal emphasized that if the valuation difference was indeed due to material costs and the appellant acted in good faith based on conflicting Tribunal decisions, the extended recovery period and penalty under Section 78 would not be applicable. The appeal was disposed of with directions for a new decision based on a finding regarding the valuation issue. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further examination, ensuring a fair consideration of the valuation discrepancy and the impact of conflicting judgments on service tax payment.
|