9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Finance Act, 1994. The discrepancy pointed out by the Audit Wing under para.2 regarding the short payment of service tax amounting to ₹ 38,66,902/- was explained by the petitioner that the same was correctly declared in page.11 of the same return under the head CENVAT Credit details . A communication was issued to the petitioner indicating that the objections were not accepted by the audit group, show cause would be issued in respect of paras.1 to 5. The show cause notice issued on 29.02.2016 relates to paras.1,3,4 and 5 of the objections raised by the Audit Wing and the said notice is yet to be adjudicated. In such circumstances, without issuing the show cause notice to the short payment of service tax of ₹ 38,66,902/-, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the department covering the period from April 2012 to March 2014, some discrepancies committed by the petitioner were noticed, objections were raised and the same were communicated to the petitioner. The observations of the audit officers relating to the difference of ₹ 38,66,902/- between the total tax payable and the actual amount of tax paid was considered as short payment of service tax and is figured in Sl.No./para 2 of the objections raised by the audit wing. 4. The petitioner had explained that there is no such short payment of service tax as pointed out by the Audit Wing and that they have paid the service tax as assessed by them and adjustment of CENVAT credit. The petitioner had not shown actual amount of tax paid by CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le by a person is sine qua non for initiating recovery proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994. 8. It is not in dispute that objections were raised by the Audit Wing subsequent to certain discrepancies found in the accounts of the petitioner. Para.2 of the said objections relates to short payment of service tax during the year 2012-2013 amounting to ₹ 38,66,902/-. Among six objections raised by the Audit Wing, objection No.6 regarding penalty for ST-3 was admitted and the other objections were contested by the petitioner providing detailed explanation. The discrepancy pointed out by the Audit Wing under para.2 regarding the short payment of service tax amounting to ₹ 38,66,902/- was explained by the petitioner that the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
