2014 (10) TMI 485 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of differential service tax - difference of amount shown in figures and in words of the service provided by the appellant - Held that - During the impugned period, service tax is payable on the amount received towards the services rendered. The appellant has shown the evidence of receipt of payment of service provided by way of production of photocopy of cheque, ledger account and TDS certificate. The genuineness of these have not been doubted by the Adjudicating authority. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority or the investigating agency has not taken any steps to verify the fact as to what amount has been paid by the service recipient towards the service provided against the said invoice. Both the service recipient and service provider are under the jurisdiction of the same Commissioner of Service Tax. In these circumstances, we remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the fact how much amount has been paid by the service recipient to the appellant against the amount in dispute - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation based on discrepancy in amount shown in figures and words of service provided.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against a service tax demand confirmation due to an alleged discrepancy in the amount shown in figures and words for services provided. The appellant raised a debit note for a specific amount to a telecom company, and the revenue claimed that the difference in the amount representation required the appellant to pay service tax based on the higher figure. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to confirmation of the demand, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contended that service tax was payable on a receipt basis during the relevant period and provided evidence of payment received, including a cheque copy, ledger account, and TDS certificate. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority failed to consider these documents, leading to an erroneous confirmation of the demand.

The appellate tribunal noted that service tax during the relevant period was indeed payable based on the amount received for services rendered. The evidence provided by the appellant regarding payment receipt was not disputed for its genuineness. However, it was highlighted that neither the adjudicating authority nor the investigating agency had verified the actual amount paid by the service recipient for the services provided. Given that both the service recipient and provider fell under the same jurisdiction, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification of the actual payment made by the service recipient to the appellant in relation to the disputed amount. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order after verifying the payment details.

In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeal and stay application by remanding the matter for verification of the actual payment received by the appellant for the services provided, emphasizing the importance of verifying the payment details before confirming service tax demands based on discrepancies in amount representation.