TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of M/s B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. in service tax case</h1> <h3>M/s B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi</h3> M/s B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Incorrect filing of service tax returns.2. Adjustment of service tax under Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules (STR).3. Demand for repayment of service tax and imposition of penalties.4. Time-barred nature of the demand.Summary:1. Incorrect Filing of Service Tax Returns:The appellant, M/s B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., acknowledged that they incorrectly filed entries in the ST-3 returns. They mistakenly reported adjustments under Rule 6(3) instead of Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules (STR). Despite this error, they argued that they had fully paid the service tax due along with interest and that this should not result in a demand for repayment.2. Adjustment of Service Tax Under Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(4A):The appellant contended that the adjustments made were due to short payments in some months and excess payments in others. They claimed the right to adjust these under Rule 6(4A) of STR, which allows for such adjustments. The adjudicating authority, however, based its decision on Rule 6(3), which requires the refund of consideration to customers before making adjustments. The authority did not verify the appellant's claims or the reconciliation statements provided.3. Demand for Repayment of Service Tax and Imposition of Penalties:The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for Rs. 1,58,52,669/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. The appellant argued that the demand was unjust as they had already paid the service tax along with interest. They cited previous case law to support their position that adjustments should be allowed even if there was an error in filing.4. Time-Barred Nature of the Demand:The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred since the ST-3 returns for the period in question were filed on 25.10.2007, and the show cause notice was issued on 24.04.2009. The tribunal did not address this issue as it decided the case on merits.Tribunal's Findings:The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not consider the appellant's submissions or the reconciliation statements. It noted that Rule 6(4A) allows for the adjustment of excess service tax paid, and this rule supersedes other procedures. The tribunal cited previous decisions supporting the appellant's right to adjust excess payments and ruled that the demand and penalties were not justified.Conclusion:The tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant on merits and allowing the appeal. The issue of limitation was not addressed due to the decision on merits. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 30/05/2023.
TaxTMI 