9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upply of manpower to their various clients. The said services were rendered by the appellants to textile mills and also to Maharashtra State Secondary School of Certificate Board, Aurangabad (SSC Board in short). On scrutiny of the records filed by the assessee, it was seen that the appellant had declared the value of taxable service at ₹ 5,03,01,707/- whereas from the audited balance sheet it was seen that the income of the appellant was ₹ 7,78,90,596/- during the same period and on the differential value they had not discharged the service tax. It appeared that the appellant short paid service tax to the extent of ₹ 95,39,587/-. Accordingly a notice dated 14-9-2011 was issued demanding differential service tax of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, while passing the interim order, leniency may be shown. 4. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand submits that it is a clear case of misdeclaration by the appellant. The ST-3 return figures do not match with the figures reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant. He relies on the decision in the case of Ideal Security v. CCE, Allahabad - 2011 (23) S.T.R. 66 (Tri.-Del.) wherein, this Tribunal held that service tax is payable on the whole amount which has been charged for rendering of security services including the payment towards ESI and PF and there is no provision for excluding any of these amounts from the gross consideration received for the purpose of payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax liability and the consideration. There is no provision in law that merely because the recipient of service did not pay the tax, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. In view of the above, the contention of the appellant in this regard has no merits and is accordingly rejected as not sustainable. As regards the financial difficulties urged by the appellant, it is a fact that the appellant has received consideration for the services rendered. Only for the payment of service tax, the appellant is expressing financial difficulties. Even if the whole amount received is treated as cum-service tax, the tax liability would be ₹ 70 lakhs as admitted by the appellant. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
