9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of such adjustment stands made to the department. Even if it is not adhered to, at the most it is a procedural lapse and merely for this procedural lapse the excess amount paid could not be deviated and cannot be permitted to be retained by the government. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that singular include the plural. Accordingly, month includes months. Further the various case laws relied on by the appellants are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The excess amount paid in the month of May, 2011 adjusted by the appellants in the subsequent months tax liability is absolutely in order. Therefore, invoking Section 73(1) for a non-existing short payment is not sustainable. - Decided in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month of May, 2011 and hence it was adjusted against the tax liabilities for the month of July, 2011. He submits that Rule 6 (4A) of Service Tax Rules allows re-credit in the succeeding month and July 2011 can also be accepted as succeeding to May, 2011 though not immediately succeeding month. He submits that in service tax, returns are submitted half yearly and these adjustments can be monitored only during the scrutiny of single return itself. Therefore, short payment in the month of July, 2011 is due to the adjustment of service tax paid in excess in the month of May, 2011. He submits that the short payment in the month of July, 2011 is illusory and not real and therefore Section 73(1) cannot be invoked for a non-existing short payment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r res integra and stands settled in favour of the appellants that the adjustment of service tax paid in excess towards the service tax liability of the subsequent months cannot be denied on technical grounds and hence penalty imposed is also not sustainable. He submits that as the excess amount of service tax paid in advance was adjusted in the tax liability of the subsequent months, no question of short payment arises and the demands are not sustainable. 3. The Ld. AR Shri. L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR), appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the appellant has not intimated the department about excess amount of service tax paid in the month of May and the same was adjusted in the month of July instead of June. He further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department in this regard, but adjustment was declared in their ST3 returns, accordingly intimation of such adjustment stands made to the department. Even if it is not adhered to, at the most it is a procedural lapse and merely for this procedural lapse the excess amount paid could not be deviated and cannot be permitted to be retained by the government. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that singular include the plural. Accordingly, month includes months. Further the case laws relied on by the appellants are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The issue stands settled against the Revenue and in favour of the appellant assessee. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the excess amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
