TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is bad in law, without finding any fault or error in the same. The ST-3 Returns submitted by an assessee is binding on the Department, unless the Department finds material faults or errors in the same. Further, issue of show cause notice on the apparent difference in the gross turnover as per balance sheet or ST-3 Return, as compared with Form 26 AS have been deprecated by this Tribunal in several matters. Form 26 AS is not the prescribed document in the scheme of Service Tax Assessment and the same cannot be adopted blindly without any attempt to reconcile the difference. On perusal of the calculation submitted by the appellant of their tax liability, there are no error found in the same. Further, the appellant against the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idual engaged in providing works contract service and is also providing services to insurance company as agent and is registered with the Department. The appellant have also filed their returns regularly in form ST-3. 3. Based on the third party information from Income Tax Department, on the basis of Form 26 AS, it appeared to Revenue that during the financial year 2013-2014, the appellant is required to pay service tax on the differential value of Rs.9,17,914/- on the basis of gross receipts as per Form 26 AS, as compared with the ST-3 Returns. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 15.04.2019 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation proposing to demand service tax of Rs.1,13,534/- on the differential value of Rs.9,17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertification on the calculation sheet, did not consider the same nor allowed the benefit of abatement for works contract and confirmed the proposed service tax liability of Rs.1,13,534/- along with interest and further imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Penalty of Rs.10,000 was also imposed under Section 77 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the following grounds:- 1. That, impugned order dt. 07.02.2019, creating tax demand of Rs. 113534/- is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and seems to have been passed without considering facts of the case available on record, in proper context. 2. That, denial of benefit of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng aside the demand of Rs.80,508/- and upholding the demand of Rs.33,026/-. Further, proportionate penalty of Rs.33,026/- was confirmed under Section 78 of the Act and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 was upheld. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the benefit abatement under Notification no.24/2012-ST has been arbitrarily denied, when it is admittedly a case of Works Contract. Further, benefit of reduced tax liability, under Reverse Charge Mechanism, under Notifications Nos.30/2012-ST has also been denied in respect of contract receipts from AO MPMKVV Co. Ltd, Morena. Further, urged that the Court Below have erred in calculating the tax liability on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arent difference in the gross turnover as per balance sheet or ST-3 Return, as compared with Form 26 AS have been deprecated by this Tribunal in several matters. Form 26 AS is not the prescribed document in the scheme of Service Tax Assessment and the same cannot be adopted blindly without any attempt to reconcile the difference. On perusal of the calculation submitted by the appellant of their tax liability, I find no error in the same. Further, the appellant against the tax liability of Rs.72,724/-, have already paid an amount of Rs.76,908/-. Thus, have paid higher amount than the tax liability. Thus, I find the whole exercise as unwarranted and mis-conceived on the part of the Department. 11. I also find that the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|