9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 181 - AT - Service TaxGTA Service - non-payment of service tax - demand confirmed on the ground that the appellants have not produced the ledger accounts and the worksheets showing the correlation - Held that - The appellants are paying service tax on the services received from GTA under reverse charge mechanism and they are maintaining the books of accounts and the ledger wherein they have shown the amount of GTA received and paid on reverse charge mechanism. The duty liability has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants have not produced the ledger accounts and the worksheets showing the correlation whereas as per the appellant he has already furnished the correlation and worksheets and ledger accounts but the same has not been considered by both the parties. The appellant has produced the worksheets before this Tribunal showing the payment of GTA on reverse charge basis but the same has not been considered by both the authorities below. This case needs to be remanded back to the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Liability for service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. 2. Discrepancy in taxable values declared in ST-3 returns and ledger accounts. 3. Allegations of contravening provisions under Service Tax Rules. 4. Demand of service tax, interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of consideration of submissions and documents. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability for service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service The appellant was found to have not discharged the service tax liability on GTA service despite receiving transportation services for raw materials and finished goods. The audit revealed discrepancies in the payment of service tax for the period from 10/2010 to 03/2011 and from 04/2011 to 03/2015. The appellant was held liable for contravening provisions under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, resulting in a demand for unpaid service tax and interest. Issue 2: Discrepancy in taxable values declared in ST-3 returns and ledger accounts The audit highlighted that the taxable values declared in the ST-3 returns did not match the values in the ledger accounts, leading to a shortfall in the payment of service tax. This inconsistency raised concerns of underpayment and non-compliance with tax regulations, warranting the issuance of a show-cause notice demanding the unpaid service tax along with interest and penalties. Issue 3: Allegations of contravening provisions under Service Tax Rules The appellant was accused of contravening provisions under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The failure to pay the stipulated service tax amounts for the respective periods and the discrepancies in the declared taxable values further substantiated the allegations of non-compliance with the statutory provisions. Issue 4: Demand of service tax, interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 Following a show-cause notice and due process, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for unpaid service tax amounts and imposed penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging this order was rejected, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 5: Rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of consideration of submissions and documents The appellant contended that the impugned order was unsustainable as it failed to consider their submissions, documents, and worksheets demonstrating the payment of GTA under reverse charge mechanism. Despite maintaining proper accounts and furnishing relevant evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original without adequately appreciating the appellant's contentions, leading to the Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the original authority for a reevaluation based on the provided ledger accounts and worksheets. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh assessment considering the appellant's submissions and supporting documents, emphasizing the importance of verifying the tax liability with the ledger accounts and worksheets provided by the appellant.
|
