Service tax demand over Form 26AS vs ST-3 turnover mismatch rejected for presumptive SCN and no evidence

Service tax demand based solely on a mismatch between turnover in income tax records/Form 26AS and nil turnover in ST-3 returns was held unsustainable because the SCN was wholly presumptive, did not identify the underlying activity, and failed to examine whether the differential turnover related to taxable services or non-taxable business; absent investigation and admissible evidence, mere arithmetical application of the tax rate to the difference could not found liability. Consequently, the dropping of the major demand was upheld and the residual confirmed demand, interest, and equal penalty were set aside; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the present case are the substantial demand of service tax dropped by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, the appeal by Revenue against the said order, and the cross appeal filed by the respondent seeking relief in respect of the confirmation of service tax demand amounting to Rs.87,676/-.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Demand of Service Tax:
The Revenue demanded service tax of Rs.292,87,51,316/- from the respondent based on a mismatch between the turnover recorded by the respondent and the value of services reflected in ST-3 returns for the year 2013-14. The original authority dropped the demand to the tune of Rs.292,86,63,640/- after finding that a significant portion of the turnover was exempted from levy of service tax under a specific notification.

Issue 2 - Cross Appeal by Respondent:
The respondent filed a cross appeal against the confirmation of the demand of service tax of Rs.87,676/- on commission received and some written-off income, along with associated penalties. The respondent argued that the show cause notice was issued without proper examination of records and without establishing that the transactions were in respect of taxable services.

Detailed Analysis:

The Revenue contended that the original authority did not verify the records of the parent contractor for whom the respondent worked as a sub-contractor. They requested a remand for de novo adjudication after verification of the contract copies. However, the respondent's counsel argued that all relevant papers were submitted, and the original authority correctly concluded that the turnover was related to works contract for highways and expressways.

Upon reviewing the case records, it was found that the show cause notice was presumptive, lacking examination of the activity and reasons for turnover differences. The notice presumed the entire turnover to be taxable without proper verification. The Tribunal cited previous cases where demands based solely on turnover differences were deemed unsustainable without detailed examination.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was presumptive and unsustainable. While upholding the dropping of the major demand by the original authority, the confirmation of the smaller demand and associated penalties were set aside due to the flawed nature of the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, and the cross appeal by the respondent was allowed based on the above analysis.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2023)

---