Service tax paid in advance discharges liability even without proper reflection in ST-3 returns under Rule 6(4A)

The CESTAT Mumbai held that where service tax was paid in advance but not reflected in ST-3 returns or adjusted in subsequent returns, the tax liability was deemed discharged. The tribunal found that Rule 6(4A) permits adjustment of excess payments against future dues without requiring prior intimation, unlike Rule 6(1A). Despite the appellant's failure to properly record advance payments in returns due to inadequate legal understanding, the actual discharge of duty liability was recognized. The demand was set aside as the service tax obligation had been fulfilled, though procedural compliance was lacking. Appeal allowed in part.

---

---

Issues:
- Conformation of demand of Service Tax on taxable value
- Accounting error in payment of Service Tax

Conformation of demand of Service Tax on taxable value:
The appeal challenged the demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,66,357/- on the taxable value of service @ Rs.25,26,600/- for the period between April 2015 to March 2016 under Section 73(1) and (2) of the Finance Act, 1944, along with interest and equal penalty by the Commissioner of CGST. The Appellant was engaged in various activities like film production, trading copyrights, and post-production services, registered under multiple taxable services. The investigation revealed a short payment of Service Tax, leading to demand-cum-show-cause notices. The Appellant settled one notice under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme but disputed the remaining demand. The Appellant argued that the Service Tax demand was made due to an accounting error in showing advances received as taxable income in the wrong financial year. The Chartered Accountant's certificate supported the claim that the Service Tax was paid in advance but not adjusted in subsequent returns, leading to the demand being contested.

Accounting error in payment of Service Tax:
The Appellant contended that the Service Tax demand arose from mistakenly paying tax on advances received in the wrong financial year, leading to an accounting discrepancy. The Respondent-Department, however, supported the Commissioner's order, stating that the balance sheet and returns did not explicitly mention the advance tax payment. The Chartered Accountant's certificate highlighted the difference in advances received between financial years and the non-reporting of credit notes, attributing the discrepancy to accounting irregularities. The Tribunal analyzed the expert opinion of the Chartered Accountant, accepting the accounting error as a valid reason for the discrepancy. The Tribunal examined the permissibility of adjusting advance tax payments in subsequent periods as per the Finance Act and Service Tax rules. It was found that the Appellant had paid the duty liability in advance but failed to record it in the ST-3 Returns, leading to the demand being contested. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the demand for Service Tax while confirming the late filing penalty for the relevant period.

---