9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating authority has not accepted this contention of the Appellant only for the reason that the figures in the two challans do not correspond to tax liability of ₹ 1,76,429/-. The adjudicating authority committed an error in rejecting this contention of the Appellant for the reason that the tax amount mentioned in the two challans would also include that tax amount for the other amount received by the Appellant in the month April, 2008. It would have been different if the amount mentioned in the Challans was lesser than ₹ 1,76,429/- because in that case the Appellant would not have discharged the entire tax liability - The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to advert to this issue in the order even though the said submission was noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. There is no short payment of Service Tax for the period in issue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50485 of 2016 -DB - Final Order No. 51163/2019 - Dated:- 20-8-2019 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri A.K. Batra, CA And Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate- for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be imposed upon them under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for suppressing of the fact from the department. 4. A reply was filed by the Appellant to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and from the Order-in-Original it clearly transpires that when the authorised signatory of the party appeared for personal hearing on 28 December, 2012 before the Deputy Commissioner, it was pointed out that it would be clear from the letter dated 24 December, 2012 submitted by the Appellant in reply to the Show Cause Notice that they had already paid the tax demanded by two challans. The relevant paragraph of the Order is reproduced below: 8. Party failed to submit reply to the notice within the time stipulated therein. In the interest of principal of natural justice, opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the party on 28.12.2012. Sh. S.K. Singh, Authorised signatory of the party appeared for personal hearing on 28.12.2012 wherein he submitted reply to the show cause notice vide their letter no. Leo/12-13/41 dated 24.12.2012 whereby they stated that they have already deposited the tax demanded as per the following details:- (i) Challan No. J/018598491 for ₹ 61,011 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NIL NIL Total 933794.00 493617.00 1427411.00 Total: ₹ 14,27,411/- Service Tax @ 12.36% ₹ 1,76,428/- 2. Service tax Received from SECL in coal loading charges ₹ 4,93,617.00 only, for the period from 03.10.2007 to 28.02.2008 @ 12.36% ₹ 61,011.00 in the month of March, 2008. The same amount deposited by us in April 2008 with March 2008 challan. 3. Letter No. Leo/12-13/41 dated 24.12.2012, the appellant has paid the service tax for the said period whose Challan numbers with respective amounts are as follows: Challan No. J/018598491 for ₹ 61,011/- on 29.04.2008 Challan No. J/018598938 for ₹ 2,86,017/- on 29.04.2008 8. What was, therefore, sought to be urged by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the Service Tax demand of ₹ 1,76,429/- on the total taxable service of ₹ 14,27,411/- was deposited in April, 2008 with the March 2008 challan and details of the challan numbers were also stated. 9. This contention of the Appellant was not considered by the Commissioner, as there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received the said amount in April 08 and has duly discharged Service tax on the said amount vide following Challans: Challan No. J/018598491 for ₹ 61,011 on 29.04.2008 Challan No. J/018598938 for ₹ 2,86,017 on 29.04.2008 This certificate is based on the examination of the books of accounts and other relevant records produced before us for examination. Place : Bilaspur Date : 28.03.2016 12. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned Chartered Accountant for the Appellant that it was only after 1 July, 2011 that it was made mandatory for an assessee to discharge Service Tax liability on the basis of the data maintained in the ledger on accrual basis and prior to that it was open to an assessee to discharge the Service Tax liability on receipt basis. It is for this reason that the Service Tax liability for an amount of ₹ 14,27,411/- was discharged in April 2008 when the amount was actually received by the Appellant and in support of his submission the learned Chartered Accountant has placed reliance upon the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant, that mentions that the aforesaid amount was received by the Appellant in April 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
