2019 (7) TMI 208 - AT - Service Tax

Short payment of service tax - the adjudicating authority rejected the C.A. certificate on the ground that the supporting documents like, ledger, invoice, bills etc. have not been produced - HELD THAT - Since the appellant had already earlier submitted the detail of profit and loss account, ledge, invoices, bills etc., they had placed the C.A. certificate in support of their claim for reconciliation of the figures between ST-3 returns and the balance-sheet. The authorities below rejected the C.A. certificate on the ground that the supporting documents were not enclosed along with the certificate. There is no justification in the findings of the authorities below inasmuch as all the documents have been submitted by the appellant, the basis on which show-cause notice was issued to the appellant which is evident from the show-cause notice itself - rejection of the C.A. certificate for want of supporting documents, cannot be sustained. Since the appellant is able to reconcile the differential figures between ST-3 returns and the balance-sheet supported by the C.A. certificate - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. MKK/684/RGD APP/2017 dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigad.

Analysis:
The appellant provided taxable services under various categories during 2006-07 to 2008-09. Discrepancies between the balance sheet and ST-3 Returns led to a demand notice for recovery of &8377; 5,23,132/- with interest and penalty. After adjudication, the demand was upheld. The appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, prompting an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconciliation of figures, which was confirmed with interest and penalty by both lower authorities. The appellant contended that the balance-sheet amount was gross, while ST-3 returns reflected the actual received amount. A Chartered Accountant (C.A.) certificate was submitted post-remand to support this claim, but was rejected for lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal found fault with this rejection, noting that all necessary documents were previously submitted, forming the basis of the show-cause notices. Consequently, the rejection of the C.A. certificate was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal's earlier direction for reconciliation was reiterated, emphasizing the submission of a C.A. certified statement. Despite the rejection of the C.A. certificate by lower authorities due to missing supporting documents, the Tribunal found the rejection baseless as all relevant documents had been previously provided. The Tribunal concluded that since the appellant successfully reconciled the figures with the C.A. certificate, the impugned order lacked merit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law.