9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 73 (1) for invoking the provisions of extended period have been invoked for demanding this service tax. The fact that appellant was filing ST-3 return do not leave him from the responsibility to declare the correct value of taxable services provided. The mis-declaration has come to the knowledge only on the basis of information provided from Income Tax authorities for comparison with ST-3 returns.
Conclusion - There are no merits in the submission made in the appeal that extended period should not have been invoked. The demand for service tax by invoking extended period is upheld.
The demand by invoking the extended period upheld, penalty imposed under Section 78 is also upheld - appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 77 (1)(b) of Finance Act 1994. 6. I impose a penalty of Rs. 500/-/- (Rs. Five Hundred Only) on M/s Bhawani Deen, Vill.-Kaleha, PO-NTPC Unchahar, Distt.-Raebareli under Section 77 (1) (c) of Finance Act 1994. 7. I order to recover Late fee of Rs. 7100/-/- (Rs. Seven Thousand One Hundred Only) from M/s Bhawani Deen, Vill.-Kaleha, PO-NTPC Unchahar, Distt.-Raebareli under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994, read with Section 70(1) of Finance Act, 1994." 2.1 This matter had been listed for hearing on 18.11.2024, 01.01.2025, 14.02.2025 and for today, appellant has never been attended any of the hearing nor have responded any of notices issued to him for hearing and never made any request for adjournment. As three adjournments ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument. 4.2 The issue involved in the present appeal is only vis-à-vis invocation of extended period of limitation. In the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) have observed as follows:- "4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case, the averments made at the time of personal hearing and all other material/ documents available on records. 4.2 The appellant has contested that the impugned order was issued without giving opportunity to the appellant in violation of natural justice. I observe that the adjudicating authority has extended opportunity of personal hearing on 26.11.2019, 06.12.2019, 21.05.2020, 07.07.2020, and 24.11.2020 but the appellant was neither appeared for personal hearing on aforementioned dates nor seek an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed that the appellant has suppressed gross value in their ST-3 returns during the period 2014-15 to 2016-17. Thus, impugned show cause notice dated 21.10.2019 was issued against the appellant for short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 11,46,212/- by invoking extended period of limitation. Since, it is on record that the appellant has suppressed gross amount in their ST-3 returns, therefore, I find no force in the contention of the appellant that the impugned SCN could not be issued by invoking extended period of limitation. 4.4 The appellant has not contested the demand on merit neither in appeal memorandum nor during the course of personal hearing conducted on 27.10.2021. However, the appellant was given opportunity vide let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on received from Income Tax Authorities, it was observed that they have suppressed the value of taxable services provided by them. The details on comparison of the information as per ST-3 return and the Income tax return, Form 26AS following is observed:- SI. No Period Income as per ST-3 Income as per "26 AS details" Tax rate Service tax liability Service tax paid as per GAR-7 Challan Service tax recoverable 1 2014-15 0 1673305 12.36% 206820 0 206820 2 2015-16 216028 1778657 14.5% 257905 59744 198161 3 2016-17 351207 5062749 15% 759412 18181 741231 Total 5,67,235 85,14,711 - 12,24,137 85,039 11,46,212 4.4 No explanation is coming forth for not declaring the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
