2015 (10) TMI 2153 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Appellant contends that it has paid the service tax on the actual receipt and duly submitted reconciliation statement with minor variations - Held That - appellant did not submit any evidence to show that it had actually paid service tax on the proceeds actually received by them and that the receipt shown in the balance sheet did not represent the actual realisation. - The act of non-furnishing of information by the appellant amounts to suppression of facts - Demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on entire receipts under security service.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order upholding a service tax demand on the ground that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability on the entire receipts under security service. Despite no representation from the appellant during the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merit as the notice of hearing was duly sent. The appellant contended that they paid service tax on actual receipt while figures in the balance sheets were on accrual basis. They also submitted a reconciliation statement with minor variations. The appellant claimed that any errors in mentioning the accounting head for interest and education cess were not in dispute, and there was no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement.

The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the impugned order established the appellant's liability and highlighted suppression on the appellant's part, noting that the reconciliation statement lacked supporting evidence. The Tribunal considered the facts on record, noting that the appellant failed to provide evidence of paying service tax on the actual proceeds received and did not cooperate in reconciling the figures. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant's non-furnishing of information amounted to suppression of facts, citing a judgment by the Uttarakhand High Court. The impugned order was passed based on available facts as no one appeared for a personal hearing on behalf of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order warranting appellate intervention and dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the appellant's failure to provide evidence of paying service tax on actual receipts, lack of cooperation in reconciliation, and the Commissioner's reliance on available facts due to the appellant's non-appearance for a personal hearing.