9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Balance Sheet/Trial Balance for the period 2015-16 to June, 2017. On perusal of the agreements submitted by the appellant, the Department found that none of the agreements was registered. The Department also noted that language in almost all the agreements was same, and the nature of work mentioned therein was farm labour, business facilitator and distribution of SIM and Man Power Supply. The maximum services mentioned in these agreements were exempted services under the Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. Similarly on perusal of sample invoices submitted by the appellant, the Department found that addresses of their clients had not been mentioned in any of the invoices. The nature of services & service tax amount were also not mentioned. Therefore, letters were issued to these clients to submit the copies of ledgers, invoices, agreements and the amount of Service Tax paid by them to the appellant for the period from 2015-16 to June, 2017. From the letters received from some of those clients made it clear that the appellant had charged the Service Tax in their invoices but had not deposited in the Government Account for provision of manpower supply. Show Cause Notice No. 02/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als as follows:- "DATE OF HEARING: 09.08.2024 The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition 12552 of 2024 filed by the appellant observed, while dismissing the petition, that if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of pre deposit within a period of 60 days from the date of order, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within a further period of 120 days. There is nothing on the record to indicate that pre deposit has been made. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not appeared. List on August 19, 2024 with the office report regarding pre-deposit. Notice may also be sent to the appellant by speed post/e-mail to inform that the matter would be listed on August 19, 2024. Date of Hearing : 19/08/2024 None is present for the appellant. A written request for adjournment is received. It has also been mentioned that the Writ Petition No.12552 of 2024 was mistakenly filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Jabalpur as the amount involving the amount of pre-deposit was already paid by the appellant. However, the order of Hon'ble High Court in the said Writ Petition is already on record where this fact is nowhere been recorded. However, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrar of the Tribunal may be placed before the President on the administrative side. As no one appeared for hearing on 05.11.2024, the Bench decided to proceed to hear the learned AR for the Department. The appellant's submissions in their Grounds of Appeal are noted. 3.1 The appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has grossly erred in determining wrong taxable value as the amount so determined is almost double of the actual taxable value. The appellant has further submitted that the Commissioner has erred in comparing the Gross receipts as per Form 26AS and receipts as per Profit & Loss account as these receipts were accounted in the Profit & Loss account. The appellant has further submitted that the Commissioner has erred in passing the order, by not considering the information which was submitted along with the documents. The appellant has further submitted that the impugned order was grossly erred in comparing figures of 26AS for the F.Y 2017-18 with 1st quarter figures of Books of Accounts. The penalty imposed u/s 78 of Rs. 19,62,73,073/- and Rs.1,00,000/- u/s 78A of the Finance Act 1994 is also erroneous and unjustified and the interest so applied under section 75 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017-18 (Jun-17) wherein the scope of work mentioned, read as "you shall place the manpower for all position matching to our job specs and selection process". Upon comparison of both work orders, the impugned order notes that the appellant had deliberately forged the Agreement/work order of M/s Gujrat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd. in order to avoid payment of service tax. Further, the sample bill no. 529 dated 16/09/2015 issued by the appellant to M/s Gujrat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. showed the amount as Rs. 42,733/- wherein no service tax was charged from M/s Gujrat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. However, M/s Gujrat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. provided the actual tax invoice no. 79 dated 16/09/2015 issued by the appellant wherein the appellant had charged service tax of Rs. 5.247/-@ 14% on Rs. 37.485/- from M/s Gujrat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. It is clearly on record that the appellant has forged the work order as well as invoice with a malafide intention to evade payment of service tax actually collected by them. 6. Similarly, the appellant submitted the Agreement dated NII. for business facilitator issued by M/s Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd wherein the scope of wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Consequently, their service tax liability has been more than doubled. We note that apart from merely stating that the impugned order has added the amount shown in 26AS statement with the amount shown in Books of Accounts no evidence has been adduced by the appellant in support of their contention. No one even appeared on the day this case was posted for hearing, nor any written submissions have been filed. 8. We note that it has been clearly established that the services provided by the appellant are covered under the definition of Taxable Services in the light of the changed provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 made applicable with effect from 01.07.2012. We find that the impugned order has given evidence that the appellant had received Rs. 1,52,54,53,781/- from its service recipients against provision of the said taxable services and was liable to pay service tax on said amount. We also find that the appellant mis-declared the value of taxable services provided by them and service tax liability during the relevant period in their ST-3 returns for respective periods. In addition, the appellant submitted fabricated work orders, agreements with their clients, invoices etc., befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
