9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Chart given under Para 2 of the show-cause notice that 33.33% of the payment, @ Rs.15 per quintal made to the millers, has been assumed to be charges towards transportation; no basis for the same has been given. Moreover, the difference between figures indicated in the Trial Balance was compared with the figures given in ST-3 Returns and service tax is sought to be levied on the differential figures. It is opined that such a vague and unsubstantiated show-cause notice cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Allegations in the show-cause notice should be based on concrete evidence of the services rendered or availed and the consideration paid or received for the same. In the absence of the same, the allegation will not survive. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax in the category of Transport of Goods by Road Services ; during the course of the audit of records of the appellants, it was noticed that during the period April 2005 to March 2008, they have incurred expenditure on account of amounts, paid to Rice millers, which included payment towards transportation, from the premises of millers to the godowns of FCI, @Rs.5 per quintal and that they have not discharged service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism. It was also noticed that there was a difference in the amounts incurred on Transportation Services between the ST-3 Returns and Trial balance. Thus, a show-cause notice dated 13.10.2010 was issued to the appellants seeking to recover service tax amounting to Rs.5,37,036/- along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submits that the contention that the individual transporters are not GTA is not substantiated as the sample receipts/ bills submitted by the appellant do not bear the dates or complete details of the transporters; moreover, whatever be the capacity of the goods transport operators, the obligation to pay duty was on the appellants; they have not submitted any other proof including the contract, if any, with the millers to substantiate their claim. He further submits that the facts became known to the Department only after conducting of an audit and therefore, extended period has been rightly invoked. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the show-cause notice does not specify as to how the transportat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt with the intent to evade payment of service tax and that had the matter being not detected by the audit from the records of the noticee taxable value would have escaped assessment, no positive act of omission or commission on the part of the appellants with intent to evade payment of duty has been either mentioned or evidenced or discussed in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the appellants, moreover, being a Government Corporation cannot be alleged to have suppressed material fact with intent to evade payment of tax. We find that Courts and Tribunal have been consistently holding that in respect of Government Corporations, Companies etc. intent to evade payment of service tax cannot be alleged. Mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
