9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 and not to earlier cases such as the present one. Demand of differential duty - it was alleged that original authority considered only the original return and not the revised one or the return for the financial year 2015-16 in which details of payments for the earlier financial year have been indicated - HELD THAT:- Along with this appeal, the appellant has filed a copy of ST-3 return for the year 2015-16 which does indicate some amounts paid through challans at Sl.No.H2 as payments towards arrears . These amounts need to be reckoned while deciding the tax liability by the appellant. Had the appellant submitted copies of this return before the original authority and First Appellate Authority they could have avoided unnecessary liti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. After following due process, the lower authority confirmed the demand and interest and imposed penalties as proposed. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected their appeal. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they had, indeed, short paid service tax and when this was pointed out they had filed a revised ST-3 return. Further, they had subsequently paid the differential service tax due from them through challans. He further, submits that the differential service tax paid by them was duly reflected in their ST-3 returns for the financial year 2015-16 as payments towards arrears at S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appeal and the same needs to be rejected. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. As far as the contention of the appellant that section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies to them is concerned, I find that this was inserted with effect from 14.05.2015 and there is no indication, whatsoever, in this sub-section that it is meant to have retrospective application. It is a well settled legal position that fiscal statutes always have prospective application unless a contrary intention appears in the statute itself. In this case, there is no indication of such application and therefore, section 73(1B) applies only with effect from 14.05.2015 and not to earlier cases such as the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with this appeal, the appellant has filed a copy of ST-3 return for the year 2015-16 which does indicate some amounts paid through challans at Sl.No.H2 as payments towards arrears . These amounts need to be reckoned while deciding the tax liability by the appellant. Had the appellant submitted copies of this return before the original authority and First Appellate Authority they could have avoided unnecessary litigation in appeal to that extent. I, therefore, find that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the original authority to consider the challans and the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant including revised ST-3 returns for 2014-15 and ST-3 returns for the financial year 2015-16 and re-determine the tax liability, interest an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
