9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emerged that appellant had been rendering taxable services and collecting consideration from their clients. It was alleged that appellant was charging and collecting service tax from the clients but had not remitted the same to the department. Hence show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation was issued to appellant proposing demand of an amount Rs. 10,90,730/- towards service tax, amount of Rs. 3,91,375/- towards non-remittance of collected service tax along with interest thereon besides, imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. On adjudication, original authority vide impugned order dt. 09.05.2007 confirmed the tax demand, interest and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After the Appellant started getting service tax collections from his clients, he got himself registered under the Service Tax Department in 2004. iii) Moreover, on account of the confusion regarding applicability of Service Tax, the Appellant was facing a lot of accounting and technical discrepancies, as a result of which, the accounts were not kept properly and the Appellant had also not filed his Income Tax returns for the year 2004-2005 due to badly kept accounts. iv) The Appellant has only two bank accounts and whatever professional fees has been received in these two accounts have already been voluntarily remitted by the Appellant and there is no proof by the Department that any fees outside these bank accounts had been receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursable expenses and it is a settled legal principle that reimbursable expenses do not form part of assessable value and hence those Invoices should not be included while computing the Service Tax. The Appellant has voluntarily computed it s Service Tax liability based on the amounts received against the invoices raised by it and has in toto remitted Rs. 8 lacs and the same has been certified and corroborated by its Chartered Accountant. vi) The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the contention with respect to tax liability discharged by the sub-contractor and also has not considered their contentions regarding non taxability in respect of reimbursable expenses incurred by them. vii) For the same reasons, ld. Advocate contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses are not to be included in the total value of taxable services as settled in the decision of Sangamitra Services. These issues require reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. 8. At the same time, Ld. Advocate has contended that the allegation of having collected service tax from their clients but not paid up the same to the Government is incorrect since although they had charged service tax in their bills, the clients had refused to pay the same. In our opinion, these rival contentions concerning collection or otherwise of service tax from the clients can also be best settled in de novo proceedings by the adjudicating authority. Hence it is ordered that in addition to the directions for reworking of the demand of Annexure-II & II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
