9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax in the ST-3 Returns. This court takes judicial notice that the demand under service tax on reverse charge mechanism, has to be worked out and calculated transaction wise-wise and invoice-wise. In absence of such exercise, it is found that the show cause notices is vague and fit to be held misconceived and mis-directed. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No.52190 of 2022 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 50720/2023 - Dated:- 26-5-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Ankur Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER The issue in this case is whether demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fessional services also, which are not covered under RCM. As regards security services, the appellant submitted that the notification, under which liability for paying service tax on recipient was imposed vide notification No.30/2012 ST dated 20th June, 2012 is effective from 1st July, 2012. Further, security service was clubbed with manpower service vide notification No.45/2012 dated 7th August, 2012. Further, it was pointed out that liability under RCM is applicable only where service provider is having status as individual/HUF/partnership firm, which have been ignored. It was also pointed out that out of full amount of security service for the entire financial year 2012 13 and for the rest amount, service tax already paid to the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48/- (Rs.1,01,44,126/- plus Rs.1,16,25,922/-) should not demanded as service tax short paid under RCM for the period 2012-2013 till 2015-2016 along with interest. Further penalty was proposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. 5. A second show cause notice was also issued dated 28.06.2019 on the very same allegations for the subsequent period April 16 to June 17 demanding service tax of Rs.9,30,598/- on legal professional and consultancy service, and Rs. 88,33,052/- on security service, totaling Rs.97,63,650/- including cess, as short paid under RCM, along with interest and penalty was proposed under Section 76 of the Act. 6. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. 10. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand. 8. Pursuant to remand, the matter has been re-adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner, Indore, who was pleased to confirm a higher amount of Rs.41,46,372/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 9. Assailing the impugned order, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, states that the impugned order is non-speaking and unreasoned. The whole demand is bad as the same has been confirmed without making a proper verification with respect to the facts on record. The appellant had submitted every single voucher/invoice along with the written submissions. The appellant had also prayed for deputing an officer to the premises of the appellant, for verification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned Counsel further urges that admittedly the appellant have maintained proper records of the transactions, books of accounts in the ordinary course of business. Further, admittedly, the appellant have filed their periodical ST-3 returns regularly. Thus, there is no element of any suppression, mis-statement or fraud. The issue being wholly interpersonal, the extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. 11. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 12. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the show cause notice does not contain the gist of allegations for raising the demand on RCM basis. The provisions of service tax read with the rules thereunder do not provide f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
