9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice to various entities classifiable under Body Corporate, Other than-Body Corporate and also various other entities like temples, government hospitals, etc., and for such services they got themselves registered with the Service Tax Department. They have been filing ST-3 Returns regularly and paying Service Tax leviable thereon, as quantified by them. 2. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 07.11.2019 for the period viz. Financial Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 1,57,17,570/- (inclusive of cesses) along with interest and proposal for imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Show Cause Notice has been issued on the basis of the data available in the 26AS state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case at their end before concluding the adjudication proceedings. It is the submission of the appellant that, being a registered service provider and having been filing Service Tax Returns regularly, the demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the demand itself is not sustainable. 3.1. In support of their contention, the appellant relied on the decision of 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] . 3.2. The appellant submits that the department had raised the allegation of non-payment or short payment of service tax related to the period F.Y. 2014-15 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of the facts and figures based on which the SCN was issued. Therefore, it is contended that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The appellant submits that this view has been supported by the decisions in the cases of :- (i) M/s. Munna Construction v CCE&ST [Final Order No. 77625/2024 dated 22.11.2024] (ii) Arya Logistics v CCE &ST Rajkot [ST Appeal No. 12389 of 2014 DOD 17.08.2023] (iii) Balajee Machinery v Comm of CGST &Excise, Patna-II [2022(66) GSTL 440 (T-Kol)] 3.5. In view of the above submissions, the appellant contends that the demand pertaining to the entire period F.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 is barred by limitation of time since the SCN was issued on 07.11.2019 i.e. after 30 months form the date of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, in that circumstances, the demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department. Further, the adjudication order has been passed ex parte." 6.2. We also find that the appellant submits that they have considered most of the clients who received the service are Body Corporates and hence the liability of payment of service tax would be on them. However, in the impugned order, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has classified most of the clients as non Body Corporate and cast the 100% service tax liability on them. Thus, we observe that the issue involved in this case is interpretation of the client as Body Corporate and non Body Corpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
