2018 (5) TMI 554 - AT - Service Tax

Erection and commissioning services - Neither the original authority nor the first appellate authority has given details of work order and nature of work executed by the appellant to confirm the tax liability - principles of natural justice - Held that - the impugned order put the onus on the appellant to establish that they have not rendered taxable service as alleged in the show cause notice. The same is not sustainable, as basic legal principle is the person who is alleging should establish the fact - No material evidence is available in the proceedings before the lower authorities except information purported to have been received from IOCL. The impugned order cannot be sustained giving liberty to the original authority to proceed afresh after providing all the supporting details to the appellant and giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend their case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service Tax demand confirmation against the appellant for errection commissioning service rendered to M/s. IOCL for setting up of Petrol Pumps at Kherli, Dausa & Usmanpur.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged a Service Tax demand of &8377; 5,32,526/- confirmed against the appellant for the period 01.07.2003 to 19.07.2005 under the category of errection commissioning service provided to M/s. IOCL for establishing Petrol Pumps. The appellant contended that they had ceased operations in 2003 and had not undertaken any errection work for IOCL during the disputed period. They claimed to have engaged in road works for Railways before closing their business. The Revenue initiated action based on information allegedly provided by IOCL, which was not disclosed to the appellant. Despite the appellant's responses clarifying their activities and closure, the lower authorities confirmed the tax liability without providing detailed work orders or evidence of the services rendered by the appellant.

The Tribunal noted that neither the original nor the appellate authority had furnished specifics regarding the work orders or the nature of services performed by the appellant to substantiate the tax liability. The appellant's repeated assertions of business closure in 2003 were disregarded, and the burden of proof was incorrectly placed on them to disprove the alleged taxable service. The Tribunal emphasized the legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegations. As there was a lack of material evidence beyond the information reportedly received from IOCL, which the appellant denied, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the original authority to provide all necessary details and evidence supporting the tax liability claim and afford the appellant a fair opportunity to defend their position.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, granting the original authority the liberty to reinitiate proceedings with proper documentation and ample opportunity for the appellant to present their case effectively.