2010 (7) TMI 195 - AT - Service Tax

Demand Suppression - As a result of scrutiny it was found that the value of services as reflected by them in their ST-3 returns was lower than the income reflected in their profit and loss account. Shri Mukund bhai M. Bhatt, Director of the appellant-Company, in his statement recorded on 26-9-2005 stated that apart from providing the security services, they are also providing other services like housekeeping, sweeper, sanitation, gardener, helper and labour etc. and such services are non-taxable services. Held that order not indicating such invoices were produced. Impugned order set aside. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for re-adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand on limitation and merits.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to a demand of service tax raised against an appellant engaged in providing "Security Services." The appellant had filed ST-3 returns and paid service tax, but it was discovered that the value of services reported in the returns was lower than the income in their profit and loss account. The appellant claimed that the difference was due to income from non-taxable services like housekeeping and sanitation. However, as they could not provide details of these services, a show cause notice was issued, demanding service tax for a specific period. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority, and penalties were imposed. The appeal raised issues regarding the limitation period and the merits of the case.

Regarding the limitation issue, it was noted that the extended period of five years would apply due to the suppression of taxable service value. However, on the merits, the appellant failed to substantiate their claim about income from non-taxable services. Investigations from a third party did not support the appellant's assertion. The appellant argued that they had provided details of non-taxable services to the Assistant Commissioner, but these were not considered, leading to the confirmation of the demand for the entire period. The tribunal found no evidence that such details were presented to the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication with directions for the appellant to provide invoices and documentary evidence. The Revenue was permitted to verify these details with the recipients.

In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the stay petition and the appeal by remanding the case for further adjudication, emphasizing the need for the appellant to support their claims with proper documentation and for the Revenue to verify the provided information.