2015 (12) TMI 13 - AT - Service Tax

Short payment of service tax - Non filing of ST-3 returns - figures provided by assessee had inherent inconsistencies as the service tax amounts shown as recovered/collected did not correspond with the service tax payable on value of taxable service - Held that - Primary adjudicating authority relied upon the data provided by the appellants itself to arrive at the amount of service tax short paid. The appellant has not been able to show as to how those calculations are not correct. It has not been able to provide any reconciliation statement to establish that the figures made available by them earlier had factual errors. The appellant had not been submitting ST-3 returns and provided the figures only as a result of persistent follow up by Revenue. Therefore wilful mis-statement/suppression of fact on its part is evident. The fact that even after so many years, the appellant has not been able to provide even a Chartered Accountant certified final figures to show that the figures earlier submitted by it (based on which impugned demand was worked out) were incorrect in any manner. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against service tax demand, penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, reconciliation of figures provided by the appellant, submission of ST-3 returns, wilful mis-statement/suppression of fact.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1,14,77,883 for the period Jan. 2002 to Dec. 2006, along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant claimed that the service tax was not paid due to reasons such as delayed receipt of information through post offices. However, upon examination, it was found that the figures provided by the appellant had inconsistencies, with service tax amounts not corresponding to the value of taxable service. The appellant failed to submit ST-3 returns, hindering proper scrutiny by the Revenue. The primary adjudicating authority relied on the figures provided by the appellant to determine the amount of service tax short paid.

The appellant contended that there was no short payment of service tax and offered to provide the basic sub ledger account at the hearing. They claimed that the impugned service tax was calculated at a higher rate than applicable and expressed readiness to pay due interest if any service tax was paid late. However, the Revenue argued that the figures used for calculating the short levy were provided by the appellant and could not be reconciled to justify the correctness of service tax payments.

The Tribunal considered both sides' contentions and found that the appellant failed to demonstrate any errors in the calculations made by the primary adjudicating authority. The appellant's inability to provide a reconciliation statement or certified final figures to refute the earlier submissions indicated wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.