9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the basis of information about the consideration received by the appellant for the Financial Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 that the appellant was asked vide letter dated 11.02.2014 to give the relevant records about the discharge of their service tax liability for the aforesaid two years. Since no response was received by the appellant and no document was provided for ascertaining the taxable value, the appellant was observed to be liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs.78,68,981/- on the gross amount of Rs.6,36,64,894/- as received during the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014. Resultantly, vide show cause notice bearing No. 716 dated 26.04.2018, the aforesaid amount was proposed to be recovered along with the appropriate interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the appellant. Hence, the extended period has wrongly been invoked. The order under challenge is prayed to be set aside on the said ground itself. Resultantly, appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions, learned DR has mentioned that from the show cause notice itself, it is apparent that the entire time was taken by the appellant as he failed to provide the requisite documents to the department. He was repeatedly being asked till April 2014, receiving no response over these years that the impugned show cause notice was issued. Hence, the same cannot be alleged as invocation of the extended period of limitation. Learned DR has further relied upon the findings in the Order-in- Appeal/order under challenge in Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm 26AS, VAT Returns, Work Orders, Invoices etc. for both the Financial Years in dispute (2012-13 and 2013-14). Since nothing was provided nor even appellant responded that the impugned show cause notice was served upon the appellant on 26.04.2018. No reason has been brought on record by the appellant nor has been submitted by making submissions even today about the said delay on part of the appellant and about the reason as to why none of those documents were never been provided, the delay for the entire period since February 2014 till April 2018 is held to be appellant's fault. Hence benefit cannot be extended in favour of the appellant for the said fault. Resultantly, it cannot be held that the impugned show cause notice has been issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior the issuance of show cause notice. On this ground learned counsel has prayed for confining the penalty for the balance amount of Rs. 2.57 lakhs approximately. Since the findings of Para 8 and 9 of the order under challenge have been confirmed and it has been held that there is an intentional suppression on part of the appellant. The only possibility of such suppression is an intent to evade the payment of tax as has been appreciated by Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 9 of the order under challenge. I have no reason to differ from the said findings also.
6. In view of the above discussion, I hereby uphold the order under challenge. As the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
