9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice that appellant have failed to file the returns - the appellant had filed reply to show cause notice along with copy of the ST- 3 returns. There is total failure on the part of the assessing officer to consider the reply filed as well as the documents annexed therewith, being the copy of ST 3 returns - in spite of the assessee being a registered assessee, the Assessing Officer has failed to look into the records and refer to the copy of returns already filed. The extended period of limitation is not invokable, as there is no failure on the part of the appellant to discloses taxable turnover and depositing the admitted taxes - it is observed that there is likely to be some difference in the turnover as per the ST 3 returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he financial year 2014-2015 but not disclosed tax liability correctly. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed their reply by email, being email dated 11th March, 2020 addressed to the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant had contested the show cause notice and had urged that the show cause notice is bad as Revenue have failed to refer to their own records. That the appellant have already filed the service tax returns for the 1st half on 11th November, 2014 and for the 2nd half on 25th, July, 2015 for the financial year 2014-2015. It was also urged in the facts and circumstances the extended period of limitation is not invokable. The appellant also enclosed copy of the Service Tax Returns with their reply. From the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of any tax, penalty or interest deposited - Nil. The appellant have erroneously mentioned the amount 'Nil' instead of mentioning the amount already deposited as per the ST 3 returns. Learned counsel have also drawn attention to the copy of ST 3 returns annexed to the appeal memo before this Tribunal, from which it appears that they have deposited the admitted taxes, which is much more than the 7.5% required under the provisions of section 35F. Accordingly, he stated that the dismissal of appeal by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts, accordingly, he prays for allowing their appeal with appropriate relief. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 9. Having considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
