2015 (8) TMI 453 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Telecom services - Inordinate delay in submitting returns - Suppression of facts - Held that - Adjudicating authority has analysed the facts of the case and arrived at the amount of short payment based on figures collected during audit of the appellant. It is also recorded that the figures were submitted after a considerable delay and after repeated reminders and the ST-3 returns for the period October, 2000 onwards were submitted only on 19.7.2002. Based on these facts, the lower adjudicating authorities have rightly held the appellant guilty of suppression of facts.The period involved is October 2000 to March 2002 and as per the records of service tax payable and the service tax deposited vide TR-6 challans as mentioned in the table given in the impugned primary order, short payment of service tax of ₹ 26,81,496/- is clearly evident.We find that even during the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) in spite of several dates fixed for personal hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. - No ground for appellate intervention in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation based on short payment, delayed submission of details, and suppression of actual receipts.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal that upheld the order-in-original confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 26,81,496 along with interest and penalties. The grounds for the demand were the short payment of service tax on telecom services, delayed submission of details despite repeated requests, and suppression of actual receipts. The appellant failed to appear during the proceedings, even after multiple opportunities were provided.

Upon reviewing the case records, it was found that the adjudicating authority had analyzed the facts and determined the amount of short payment based on audit findings. The appellant submitted figures after a significant delay and only provided ST-3 returns for the period in question after substantial reminders. The lower authorities rightly concluded that the appellant had suppressed facts. The time frame for the case was from October 2000 to March 2002, and the service tax payable and deposited amounts clearly indicated a short payment of Rs. 26,81,496. Despite multiple dates set for a personal hearing, the appellant did not have representation before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Considering the facts presented, the appellate tribunal found no justification for intervention in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the appellant's failure to provide timely details, delayed submission of returns, and the evident suppression of actual receipts. The tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings and concluded that the appellant was at fault for the service tax shortfall.