2018 (2) TMI 828 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of Appeal - validity of SCN - Held that - SCN did not disclose the reason why there is a discrepancy between the financial statements and the tax returns. It was stated that the invoices are prima facie evidence to bring the value and services to the fold of tax. Further, show-cause notice does not provide any basis to hear the grievance of the Revenue today - Determination of the liability than the liability already determined by the adjudicating authority by his order dated 07/09/2012 is not entertainable without any basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order, non-appearance of respondent, discrepancy between financial statements and tax returns, lack of basis in show-cause notice, liability determination, tagging of appeals.

Appeal against order:
The judgment pertains to an appeal where the respondent was in appeal against the same order appealed by the Revenue. The respondent's appeal was dismissed earlier for failure to comply with pre-deposit. The Tribunal found it difficult to decide on the merits of the Revenue's present appeal due to this situation.

Non-appearance of respondent:
In this case, there was no representation from the respondent, and no application for adjournment was made. This lack of participation from the respondent impacted the proceedings.

Discrepancy between financial statements and tax returns:
The show-cause notice did not explain the reason for the discrepancy between the financial statements and the tax returns. It was mentioned that invoices serve as prima facie evidence for tax assessment, but the notice lacked a basis to address the Revenue's grievances effectively.

Lack of basis in show-cause notice:
The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notice did not provide a proper basis to address the Revenue's concerns. Determining liability without a valid basis beyond what was already decided by the adjudicating authority was deemed inappropriate.

Tagging of appeals:
The judgment highlighted a frequent occurrence where Revenue's appeals were not tagged with the assessee's appeal for a consolidated hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the registry to address such oversights and for the Revenue to ensure simultaneous appeals against the same order are appropriately brought to the bench's attention for tagging.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue based on the observations made regarding the issues discussed. The order was to be placed in the record of the relevant appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance, proper basis for liability determination, and the need for efficient case management in handling appeals involving the same impugned order.