9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information available in the Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and ST-3 Returns. The department has not conducted any verification to find out the nature of service rendered. By the appellant and whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax or not. It is observed that the being a registered service provider and filing Service Tax Returns regularly, the demand cannot be raised only on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department. The department had raised the allegation of non-payment or short payment of service tax related to the period F.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 and the Show Cause Notice for the said period was issued on 07.11.2019 i.e. after a period of 30 months from the date of filing the last ST-3 Return for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd subsequently are set aside along with interest. iv) There was no established suppression of facts by the appellant to evade tax, thus no penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was warranted.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. adjudicating authority. 2.3. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the demands of service tax, interest and penalties, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that in the instant case, the demand has been raised on the basis of Form-26AS supplied by the Income Tax Department. It is stated that it is the Department's contention that although letters and emails were issued to explain the difference between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns but the appellant did not reply to the same, therefore, the department had to raise the demand on the basis of Form 26AS. However, the appellant contends that it is an admitted fact that no investigation has been conducted in this case at their end before concluding the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority has classified most of the clients as non Body Corporate and cast the 100% service tax liability on them. Thus, the appellant submits that the issue involved is only interpretation of the client as Body Corporate and non Body Corporate and thus, no mala-fide intension or suppression of material facts can be attributed on them to demand service tax by invoking the extended period of limitation. 3.4. The appellant submits that the entire case demand has been raised on the basis of Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and ST-3 Returns which were always open to the Department for any query/scrutiny and those are public documents; therefore, there has been no suppression in respect of the facts and figures based on which the SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Piyush Sharma v Commissioner of CGST & CX, Patna-I [Final Order No. 77332/2023 dated 17.10.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75856 of 2021 - CESTAT, Kolkata] . The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: - "10. In this case, the appellant has contended that the demand has been raised on the basis of Form-26AS supplied by the Income Tax department. Although summons were issued to the appellant and the appellant did not join the proceedings, therefore, the demand has been raised on the basis of Form-26AS. Admittedly, no investigation has been conducted in this case at the end of the appellant by the adjudicating authority. Being the appellant a registered service provider and filing their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation had already been expired. Thus, we hold that the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. As the entire demand in the impugned order falls beyond the normal period of limitation, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned order along with interest is not sustainable and accordingly, we set aside the same. 6.4. We observe that suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax is not established in this case. In these circumstances, we hold that no penalty is imposable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant. We also find that the appellant has been registered with the Department and have been filing retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
