2023 (11) TMI 820 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - Banking and other financial service - sale of stamp paper, wherein they earned commission income - case of the department is that there is difference between consideration shown in the balance sheet and ST-3 return and on such difference according to department the Service Tax was not paid - HELD THAT - Firstly the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) has not come to conclusion that the difference between the figure of ST-3 return and balance Sheet is against which head of service. It is a settled law that without determining the fact about which service is involved demand prima facie cannot be sustained. However, now the appellant has given the complete detail in their appeal regarding the differences. Therefore, the same needs to be re-verified and re-considered. The matter is remanded to Adjudicating Authority by keeping all the issues open - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal related to Service Tax demand based on difference between balance sheet and ST-3 return.

Summary:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a Service Tax demand. The appellant, engaged in banking and financial services, also sold stamp papers earning commission income. The department alleged non-payment of Service Tax due to a difference between the balance sheet and ST-3 return figures. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand without specifying the service head involved. The appellant argued that without identifying the specific service head, the demand cannot be sustained. Citing previous judgments, the appellant requested a remand for re-examination of the differences raised by the department. The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted the lack of determination regarding the service head implicated in the difference between ST-3 return and balance sheet figures. It is established that without identifying the specific service involved, the demand cannot be upheld. The appellant provided detailed explanations in their appeal, necessitating a re-verification and reconsideration of the matter. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with all issues left open for further examination. The appeal was allowed for remand to the Adjudicating Authority.