9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re they were liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism and also the renting of immovable property service rendered by them - HELD THAT:- The issue whether service tax can be demanded on the basis of the difference in the figures as reflected in the Trial Balance and ST-3 Returns is no longer res-integra referring to the decisions in Go Bindas Entertainment Private Limited [ 2019 (5) TMI 1487 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] and M/s Kush Constructions [ 2019 (5) TMI 1248 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it has been held that no demand can be confirmed by comparing the ST-3 Returns with balance sheet figures in the absence of any evidence to prove the same that income in the balance sheet reflects the providing of taxable services. Since it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n conducted. Reference has been made to the decision in M/s Vandana Global versus Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Raipur, where it has been held that it is not correct to say that had the audit not been conducted, the alleged errors in assessment would not have come to light because they would have come to light if the officers had scrutinised the returns and called for any data or records which they needed. The fact that audit has pointed out the alleged mistakes only shows that the officers have not scrutinised the Returns properly. Thus, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case, and therefore the demand being barred by limitation is unsustainable. Appellant has challenged the imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... values pertained to the Works Contract Services, Legal Consultancy Services and Security Services received by the appellant, where they were liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism and also the renting of immovable property service rendered by them. Show cause notice dated 15.07.2020 was issued demanding a sum of Rs.52,92,65,538/-. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order confirmed only the demand of service tax of Rs.10,76,44,865/- along with interest and penalty and dropped the demand in respect of the balance amount. Hence, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Rajeev Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, the Authorised Representative f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Hyderabad Bench in Asmitha Microfin Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Hyderabad-III 2020 (33) GSTL 250 (Tri.-Hyd.) ,which was passed on the basis of the decision of the Apex court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Vs.Commissioner 2017 (7) GSTL J-35 (SC) . The learned Counsel then referred to the settled position of law that there is a presumption that PSUs do not have any intention to evade the payment of tax as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 77(Tri.) and which was earlier upheld by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 1 Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd 2007 (211) ELT 193 (SC) . He accordingly, prayed that the appeal may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since it is the Revenue, who is making the allegations as such the onus to prove the said allegation lies heavily upon the Revenue. We may also refer to the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner, CGST Vs. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd (2024 TIOL-202-CESTAT-Mumbai) , where also the Tribunal reiterated the principle that demand or penalty on the basis of difference between ST-3 Returns and Income Tax Returns of any period without further examination to establish the differences on account of consideration received towards the charge of services cannot be sustained. Following the said principles, the Learned Single Member of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant titled as South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of limitation, however, the extended period of limitation has been invoked on the ground that the non-payment would not have come to knowledge had the audit not been conducted. Reference has been made to the decision in M/s Vandana Global versus Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Raipur, where it has been held that it is not correct to say that had the audit not been conducted, the alleged errors in assessment would not have come to light because they would have come to light if the officers had scrutinised the returns and called for any data or records which they needed. The fact that audit has pointed out the alleged mistakes only shows that the officers have not scrutinised the Returns properly. Thus, the extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
