9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manpower service rendered. There is nothing to show from the records that the appellant was not properly maintaining the books of account or had not recorded the various transactions. The department has nothing to substantiate its case, except for some bland statements that are essentially presumptive in nature. Moreover, 26 AS is not a prescribed statement/document for purpose of determination of service tax liability. It was for the department to lead its case with cogent evidence. The said 26 AS statement is maintained in respect of various receipts as applicable for the Income Tax Department for purpose of tax deducted TDS as relevant under the Income Tax Act. Service Tax would have to essentially depend on the value of the taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services rendered by the appellant. The order in appeal also confirms a penalty of equal amount under section 78 of the Finance Act as well as also imposes of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77(2) of the Finance Act. 3. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V J Saharan, learned authorized representative for the department and perused the appeal records. 4. It is observed that the demand referred to above has been made out by the department exclusively on the basis of certain figures as culled out from the 26 AS statement of the appellant for the relevant financial years. The department has alleged that the noticee failed to provide complete information about their tax liability on certain services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal rendered in the case of Quest Engineers Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST C. EX., Allahabad 2022(58) GSTL 345 (Tri.-All) as also in the case of Kush Constructions vs. CGST NACIN, ZTI, Kanpur 2019 (24) GSTL 606 (Tri-All) . 6. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department has submitted that the appellant failed to correctly show the computation figures towards the duty liability as evident from the 26 AS statement and there was nothing wrong in the department having culled out the said figures from the said statement obtained from the Income Tax Authorities. 7. It is observed that the aforesaid demand, made out is essentially on the basis of the figures incorporated in 26 AS statement, issued under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he books of account or had not recorded the various transactions. The department has nothing to substantiate its case, except for some bland statements that are essentially presumptive in nature. Moreover, 26 AS is not a prescribed statement/document for purpose of determination of service tax liability. It was for the department to lead its case with cogent evidence. The said 26 AS statement is maintained in respect of various receipts as applicable for the Income Tax Department for purpose of tax deducted TDS as relevant under the Income Tax Act. Service Tax would have to essentially depend on the value of the taxable service rendered and is unlike the taxability under the IT laws. The issuance of the show cause notice solely on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
