2017 (1) TMI 657 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer service - demand on the basis of income-tax return filed by respondents at Jaipur - Held that - income-tax return cannot be the basis for demanding Service Tax. Jurisdiction - respondent have rendered services outside the jurisdiction of Rajasthan and have discharged the Service Tax in Chandigarh and Lucknow - Held that - Departmental authority at Jaipur have no jurisdiction to proceed against the respondent for demanding Service Tax without any evidence of taxable service being provided within their jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order dated 5-5-2008 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur regarding Service Tax payment based on income-tax return discrepancies.

Analysis:

1. Background: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute where the respondent, engaged in providing taxable services, was accused of not paying Service Tax as per the taxable value reflected in their income-tax returns filed in Jaipur. The Revenue confirmed a Service Tax amount and imposed penalties, which was challenged by the respondent in an appeal.

2. Grounds of Appeal: The main contention raised in the appeal was the respondent's failure to produce proper documentary evidence of Service Tax payment for the relevant period at Chandigarh and Lucknow. Discrepancies between the ST-3 return filed at these locations and the income-tax return filed in Jaipur were highlighted as a basis for the appeal.

3. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the original order confirming the demand for Service Tax. The Commissioner had ruled that the income-tax return alone could not be the sole basis for demanding Service Tax. Additionally, the respondent claimed to have provided services outside Rajasthan and paid Service Tax in Chandigarh and Lucknow, jurisdictional areas different from Jaipur. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional authority in Jaipur lacked the mandate to demand Service Tax without evidence of taxable services within their jurisdiction.

4. Decision: After considering the arguments and lack of evidence presented by the Revenue, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal. It was concluded that the appeal lacked substantiation on how the Service Tax demand could be justified in the absence of proof of taxable services within Rajasthan's jurisdiction. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of inquiries or evidence supporting the Revenue's case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur's order, emphasizing the necessity of evidence and jurisdictional considerations in demanding Service Tax based on income-tax returns and taxable services provided within specific jurisdictions.