2018 (5) TMI 823 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - bill for services raised for higher amount but settled at lower amount - - Held that - the appellant had specifically stated that during the disputed period, it had received ₹ 50,20,540/- (as against bill of ₹ 85.93 lacs) and discharged the Service Tax liability thereon - the authorities below have not discussed the submissions made by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice. For ascertaining the correct tax liability, since the submissions of the appellant were required to be considered, we are of the view the matter should go back to the Original Authority for consideration of the submissions - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service Tax liability on the appellant for not depositing tax amount received from service recipient.
2. Discrepancy in the amount received by the appellant and the billed amount.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in Maintenance and Repair services, faced Service Tax demand for not depositing tax amount received from the service recipient. The initial demand of &8377; 5,40,177/- was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, which was later reduced to &8377; 2,15,245/- by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) extending the SSI benefit to the appellant.

2. The appellant contended that although the billed amount was &8377; 85,93,096/-, the service receiver settled the claim for only &8377; 50,20,540/-. The Tribunal noted that the authorities failed to consider the appellant's submission that it had received &8377; 50,20,540/- and discharged the Service Tax liability. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for proper quantification of the Service Tax demand based on the actual amount received by the appellant.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the appellant's submissions for determining the correct tax liability. The matter was sent back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision on the Service Tax demand, with the directive to grant a personal hearing before finalizing the issue.

4. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remanding the case to the Original Authority for a reevaluation of the Service Tax liability, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case during the proceedings.