9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sively to the Indian Army and during the period April, 2017 to June, 2017, they rendered services to the District Health Society, Sonitpur and to Patanjali Ayurveda Limited in addition to rendering the services undertaken to the Indian Army. 2.1 On the basis of the information received from the Income Tax Department, it came to know that the appellant is providing taxable services. Therefore, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant through letters dated 24.04.2015,09.06.2015, 31.07.2015 and 19.03.2018 seeking copies of Form 26AS, copies of profit and loss account, copies of Balance Sheet, copies of Contract Agreement, copies of Bills/Invoices raised and copies of ST-3 Returns for the said period. 2.2 On non-submission of the above documents, the matter was transferred to Tezpur CGST and Divisional Anti Evasion Branch, who further initiated an investigation against the appellant through letters dated 09.10.2020, 03.11.2020 and 28.12.2000 seeking relevant documents. 2.3 In the meantime, a request was also made to the Income Tax Department to provide the details of Form 26AS for the financial year, but the appellant supplied Form 26AS for the Financial year 2014-15, 2016-17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Form 26AS issued by the Income Tax Department, the demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form 26AS as held by this Tribunal in the cases of Pijush Sharma Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Patna I vide Final Order No.77332/2023 dated 17th October, 2023 and M/s Lord Krishna Real Infra Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida vide Final Order No.70126/2019 dated 27.12.2018, wherein it has been held that the demand raised is not sustainable against the appellant. He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC) to say that the demand is barred by limitation. He also relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Balajee Machinery Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Patna II reported in 2022 (66) GSTL 440 (Tri.-Kolkata). 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, strongly opposes the contentions of the ld.Counsel for the appellant and submitted that it is evident on record that the appellant did not join the proceedings during investigation despite several latters were written to them. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or not? 12. In that circumstances, we hold that extended period of limitation is not invocable. Moreover, on the basis of Form-26AS, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. " 7. Further, in the case of M/s Lord Krishna Real Infra Private Limited (supra), this Tribunal Tribunal has examined the issue and observed as under : "We also note that there were no other record of the appellant which were taken into consideration for entertaining a prima-facie view that appellant was required to pay short paid service tax of around Rs.8 crores for the said period than the information that was available in returns in the form 26AS. In this regard we note that this Tribunal had an occasion to examine sustainability of demand raised only on the basis of form 26AS. It was held by this Tribunal in the case of Sharma Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported at 2017 (5) GSTL 96 (Tri.-All.) as follows: "3. Heard the ld. Counsel for M/s. Sharma he has basically argued that the said Show Cause Notices were not issued by examining the books of account maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration received by them. Surprisingly the draft audit report was the relied upon document. It may be worth mentioning here that the purpose of audit report is to point out any discrepancy to the notice for examination by the executive and it is the duty of executive to examine the records and examine the objection raised with reference to the records and facts of the case and take a view whether there is a sustainable case for issue of Show Cause Notice. Such vital aspects of framing of charges have been missing in the present case. The charges in the Show Cause Notice have to be on the basis of books of account and records maintained by the assessee and other admissible evidence. The books of account maintained by M/s. Sharma were not looked into for issue of abovestated two Show Cause Notices. Therefore, the transactions recorded in the books of account cannot be held to be contrary to the facts. Therefore, we hold that the said Show Cause Notices are not sustainable. Since the said Show Cause Notices are not sustainable, appeal bearing No. ST/890/2010 filed by M/s. Sharma is allowed and appeal bearing No. ST/949/2010 filed by Revenue is dismissed. Miscellaneous Applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, we hold that merely on the basis of Form 26AS issued by the Income Tax Department, the demand of Service Tax is not sustainable against the appellant. 9. We further take note of the fact that the appellant had contested on limitation also. We find that initially, the investigation started against the appellant in April, 2015 when they came to know that the appellant is not paying service tax on taxable services and no efforts were made by the Department to issue the show-cause notice in time or to further investigate the matter, no efforts were made by the Department to find out for what purposes these amounts have been paid by the service recipient. 10. In that circumstances, we hold that as the investigation is faulty and the show-cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, the demand is not sustainable on limitation itself. 11. In view of this, we hold that the impugned demand is not sustainable against the appellant on the basis of the details provided by the Income Tax Department in Form 26AS and the extended period of limitation is not invokable. 12. In view of the aforesaid observations, we set aside the impugned order and allow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
