2019 (5) TMI 1487 - AT - Service Tax

Development Supply of Content - non-payment of service tax - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - It is well settled law that no demand can be confirmed by comparing the ST-3 return figures with balance sheet figures, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that income in the balance sheet, if excess, reflects the providing of taxable services. It is the revenue who is making the allegations and as such, the onus to prove said allegation lies very heavily upon the revenue. Inasmuch as, the same has not been done, there are no merits in the Revenue's appeal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Allegations of non-payment of Service Tax on taxable services provided.
2. Discrepancy between balance sheet figures and ST-3 returns.
3. Application of Accounting Standard-9 in recognizing income.
4. Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by the Original Adjudicating Authority.
5. Appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations against the appellants for not paying Service Tax on taxable services provided under the category of 'Development & Supply of Content.' The show cause notice highlighted a discrepancy in income figures between the trial balance and ST-3 Returns, indicating a potential evasion of duty by the appellants.

2. The appellant explained the difference in figures by stating that billing was done post receiving logs from Telecom Operators, as per the billing mechanism required by the operators. The auditors had made provisional entries in the financial records to comply with accounting standards, leading to the variance between the balance sheet and ST-3 returns.

3. The Original Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty based on the discrepancy in taxable values between the accounting system adopted by the appellant and the assessable value in ST-3 returns. The authority noted that the revenue recognition principles under Accounting Standard-9 were followed by the appellants but deemed the explanation insufficient.

4. During the appeal, the Tribunal emphasized that the revenue's case relied solely on comparing balance sheet figures with ST-3 return figures. Despite accepting the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the accounting system, the lower authorities confirmed the demand without sufficient evidence to prove that the excess income in the balance sheet reflected taxable services provided.

5. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of the revenue proving allegations of non-payment of Service Tax, especially when discrepancies arise between financial records and tax returns without concrete evidence of tax evasion.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the application of relevant legal principles, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.