9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the FY 2015-16 and Service Tax of 3,29,123/- was demanded under the extended period of time along with interest and penalties under various provisions of law. No investigation into the information received from the ITR appears to have been attempted. While the ITR could have triggered an enquiry into the non-payment of Service Tax, if any, by the appellant, it cannot be the basis of determining the value of service rendered during any period of time. Much less under the extended period of time, invoking fraud, suppression etc. without an iota of investigation or proof of evasion of duty. Mere entertaining of suspicion cannot be the basis to put a citizens right to do business in difficulty and oblige him to pay tax which is improperly dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording Show Cause Notice No. 77/2021 dated 28.4.2021 was issued to the appellant alleging service tax liability of Rs.3,29,123/- by invoking the extended time limit, for the period 2015 16. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the entire demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. Dr. M. Manimaran, Ld. Advocate appeared for the Appellant and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the Respondent. 3.1 The learned Advocate submitted that the appellant is engaged in providing Consultancy Services related to export and import of goods. They have field the appeal against the impugned order, which upheld exparte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat this is a case where the department has initiated action after obtaining the ITR of the appellant and comparing it with the STR. The entire amount shown as Sale of Service as per the ITR was taken as the presumptive value of the service rendered during the FY 2015-16 and Service Tax of 3,29,123/- was demanded under the extended period of time along with interest and penalties under various provisions of law. No investigation into the information received from the ITR appears to have been attempted. 5. While the ITR could have triggered an enquiry into the non-payment of Service Tax, if any, by the appellant, it cannot be the basis of determining the value of service rendered during any period of time. Much less under the extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Vs Mordern Road Makers Pvt Ltd., [Final Order No. 86160/2023, dated 28/07/2023]. The relevant portion is cited below; 5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. Right at the outset we have examined the show cause notice. The show cause notice dated 16.04.2019 states that the same is enclosed with two annexures. Annexure- I is work sheet. The work sheet states the turnover of the respondent for the year 2013-14 as reflected in income tax return and turnover reflected in ST-3 return as nil and the difference between the two turnovers and service tax @ 12.36% on the said difference. Annexure-II is a letter dated 25.10.2018 issued by Superintendent (Data Cell) presuming that the respondent has shorted repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot demand service tax blindly on the basis of difference in the turnover reflected in the two statutory returns. This Tribunal has time and again held as follows:- a) In the case of Lord Krishna Real Infra Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1563 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], it was held as follows:- Further, we find that on the basis of form 26AS return filed under Income Tax Act without examining any other records of the appellant, charges of short payment of service tax to the tune of 8 crores were made against the appellant. It was possible for Revenue to know the transactions between other parties appellant from form 26AS. Revenue could have investigated into the nature of such transactions should have established that the said transactions were in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainable. Since the said Show Couse 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 are also stand disposed of. Cross Objection also disposed of. C) In the case of Kush Constructions [2019 (5) TMI 1248 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], it was held as follows:- After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri A.K. Singh authorized representative of the appellant on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shiv Pratap Singh learned A.R. on behalf of the Revenue, we note that through impugned order service tax of Rs.93,000/- was confirmed along with equal penalty. On perusal of record, we note that the appellants were register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
