Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (2) TMI 1310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had requested the appellant to submit the documents, i.e., IRRs, Balance Sheets, Form 26AS and ST3 returns for the period 2012 13 to 2014 15 for examination of service tax liability on the services provided by them, however, the appellant never responded thereto nor submitted the requisite documents. Even after issuance of the show cause notice, the appellant did not submit any reply and though several opportunities were granted by the adjudicating authority the appellant did not appear and accordingly proceedings were concluded ex-parte. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions of the appellant in true spirit by follow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appeal was dismissed and the service tax liability on the appellant was affirmed. 2. The appellant is registered as Service Providers of Goods Transport Agency service classified under section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. On the basis of third-party information received from the income tax department, it was noticed that service tax amounting to Rs. 5,30,000/- on the taxable value of ₹42,88,026/- during the period 2012 13 has not been paid by the appellant. Initially the Deputy Commissioner, CGST vide letter dated 13.04.2018, requested the appellant to submit the documents, i.e. ITRs, Balance Sheets, Form 26AS and ST 3 returns etc. for the period, 2012 13 to 2014 15 for examination of service tax liability on the servi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lable data/record. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for want of corroborative evidence. Hence the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had adopted for Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) and therefore no demand could be raised for the period covered under VCES, i.e. April 2012 to December 2012. He relied on the provisions of section 108 of the Scheme to say that no demand can be raised pertaining to the said period. Also in terms of Section 111 of the Scheme the show cause notice is beyond the period of one year as specified therein and hence is barred by limitation. The learned counsel also submitted that since they are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2012 13, they are bound to pay penalty/late fee under Section 70 read with Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 7. In the facts of the present case, I am constrained to observe that the appellant had not been actively participating in the proceedings. Before issuing the show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner, CGST vide letter dated 13.04.2018, had requested the appellant to submit the documents, i.e., IRRs, Balance Sheets, Form 26AS and ST3 returns for the period 2012 13 to 2014 15 for examination of service tax liability on the services provided by them, however, the appellant never responded thereto nor submitted the requisite documents. Even after issuance of the show cause notice, the appellant did not submit any reply and though .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tract services and discharge of 50% of service tax liability under reverse charge by JVVNL is in consonance with law contained in the notification no. 30/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 and also that they are exempted under the threshold limit as per the exemption notification for small scale service providers, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant has not produced any corroborative evidence either before the adjudicating authority or before him. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that the demand of service tax should be determined on the basis of cum-tax value benefit as they had not collected the tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not provided any documents in support of their claim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates