2017 (5) TMI 821 - AT - Service Tax

Reverse charge - GTA service - short-payment of tax - Held that - Annexure-7 was prepared by the appellant based on the books of accounts maintained by it. However, without considering the said statement and the other documents submitted by the appellant, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of ₹ 93,850/-, which according to us is not sustainable - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax liability on goods transport agency (GTA) services.
2. Disputed service tax payment by the appellant.
3. Adjudication order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Excess paid service tax claimed by the appellant.
5. Consideration of appellant's documents by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing polypropylene woven fabrics, availed GTA services for goods transportation. The Department alleged underpayment of service tax by the appellant as the recipient of GTA services during 2006-07 to 2008-09.

2. The appellant contended that while the Department calculated a service tax liability of &8377; 72,73,373/-, they had actually paid &8377; 76,67,051/-, resulting in an excess payment of &8377; 309. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed a demand of &8377; 93,850/-, stating the appellant failed to deposit the service tax into the Government account.

3. The appeal against the adjudication order was heard, where the appellant's advocate argued against the confirmed demand, citing the excess payment made by the appellant. The Department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

4. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted documents, including a statement showing the excess paid service tax of &8377; 309. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider this statement and other documents submitted by the appellant, leading to an unsustainable confirmation of the demand.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of merit in the Commissioner's decision. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant documents before confirming demands related to service tax liabilities.

This judgment highlights the significance of thorough consideration of evidence and documents in tax-related disputes, ensuring fair treatment and accurate assessment of liabilities.