9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Briefly facts of the case are that on the basis of third party data as received from the Income Tax Department for the years 2015-16, it was observed that there was difference in gross receipts from services as per Income Tax data vis a vis ST-3 returns filed by the appellant during the said period; thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,71,475/- under Section 73 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act on the non paid/differential amount and penalties under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Act were also proposed to be imposed. It was alleged in the Show Cause Notice that taxable value reflected in the ST-3 returns was less than what was shown in the Income tax re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,45,250/- on which service tax payable comes to Rs. 6,19,288 and as per service tax return, service tax amounting to Rs. 5,41,582/- has been paid on Rs. 37,81,950. He further submits that the difference of service tax less paid i.e. Rs. 6,19,288/- minus Rs.5,41,582/-, actual difference of service tax less paid comes to Rs. 77,708/-. The Ld. Consultant further submits that the adjudicating authority has computed service tax @ 14.5% whereas the effective rate of service tax during the said Finance year was 12.36% for the months of April, 2015 and May, 2015, 14% for the period of June, 2015 till November, 2015 and 14.5% thereon which has been duly accounted for by the appellant while discharging its service tax liability. The appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphy cannot be completed without developing and printing process, but provide the service to the recipient. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that in the service tax returns filed by them for the dispute period, the appellant has not claimed that the services provided by them falls under works contract service and therefore he cannot claim the benefit of abatement and the same has rightly been denied to the appellant. The Ld. AR justified the invocation of extended period of limitation because the appellant has not given the sufficient information as asked for by the department by writing letters to the appellants. 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
