9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand cannot be raised for the same period on account of change in the opinion. Further, it is found that the Appellant had duly submitted the VAT Returns which have been recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. In the VAT Return for the Financial Year 2015-16, the Appellant has duly disclosed the sales turnover of Rs.8,13,46,124/- on which VAT has been duly paid, whereas the impugned demand has been raised considering the value of taxable services to be Rs.8,28,06,929/- by taking higher of the amount appearing in profit and loss account and the Income Tax Return. Similarly, for the Financial Year 2016-17, the value of taxable services have been considered to be Rs.8,96,52,728/- whereas the appellant has duly disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant assessee is a proprietorship firm registered with the service tax authorities for payment of service tax under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services. The Appellant has filed the service tax return up to the Financial Year 2014-15. Proceedings were initiated for proposing demand of service tax on the basis of information obtained from the Income Tax Department and the figures appearing in TDS statements appearing in Form 26AS. The figures appearing in the said database of Income Tax Department were compared with the figures furnished in the service tax ST-3 Returns and those appearing in the profit and loss account. On the basis of the said enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de for the previous period of 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand for the entire period in dispute without considering the trading turnover. 4.2 The Ld. Advocate also referred to the VAT returns wherein the Appellant has duly disclosed their turnover on which applicable VAT has been paid. The Ld. Commissioner having noted the said VAT returns has failed to exclude the value of sales turnover while arriving at the value of taxable services. He also submitted that the entire demand is on the basis of figures appearing in the Income Tax Portal without examining as to whether at all any taxable service has been rendered. No finding has been made with regard to the classification of taxable service on which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked the appellant to submit Financial documents pertaining to 2011-12 onwards to which the submitted that all the documents were lying with Hqrs Audit Branch and could be held from that section. 19.04.2018- SCN issued raising demand on highest amount as per ITR or Trading A/C plus the gross value of taxable service as shown in the ITR. In other words the figure of Trading axount shown in the Income tax Returns for the period of 2012-13 to 2016-17 was taken as gross value of taxable service and also for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein the Appellant has provided taxable service as C F Agent of M/s Maihar Cement was added. Since it was not there is subsequent years, the figure in the respective column was shown as O . Notably i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the issue is a fact base issue wherein the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has deliberately ignored the submission of the Appellant in so much so that no cognizance is given to assessed VAT Returns even. The TDS shown under Section 194C 194H in respective 26 AS for F.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 accrued on C F Agency were duly accounted for in the Service Tax Return as Taxable service and service tax duly discharged. In subsequent period i.e. 2014-15 onwards, as it is in records, the C F Agency got discontinued and there was no taxable service rendered by the Appellant. Pertinent to mention that on surrender of the ST Registration, Hqrs. Audit Branch conducted audit of all the Financial documents and the same was being sought for subsequentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had duly submitted the VAT Returns which have been recorded by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. 9. In the VAT Return for the Financial Year 2015-16, the Appellant has duly disclosed the sales turnover of Rs.8,13,46,124/- on which VAT has been duly paid, whereas the impugned demand has been raised considering the value of taxable services to be Rs.8,28,06,929/- by taking higher of the amount appearing in profit and loss account and the Income Tax Return. Similarly, for the Financial Year 2016-17, the value of taxable services have been considered to be Rs.8,96,52,728/- whereas the appellant has duly disclosed the sales turnover of Rs.8,79,88,828/- in its VAT Return on which VAT has been paid at applicable rate. From the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
