Service tax demand on unrealized receivables set aside without verifying actual receipt or service provision

CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 1,37,96,613/- confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal held that sundry debtors/unrealized receivables shown in balance sheet cannot be considered as value of service without verifying actual receipt of amounts or provision of services. The demand was based merely on differences between profit and loss account and ST-3 returns without proper verification. The tribunal also found extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as there was no evidence of intent to evade tax, and the matter originated from appellant's own audit records.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-inclusion of taxable services in the gross value, non-payment of service tax, liability of service tax, invocation of the extended period, and suppression of facts.

Non-Inclusion of Taxable Services in Gross Value:
The appellant, registered for various taxable services, was found to have issued invoices for services provided but did not include them in the gross taxable value nor paid service tax. The department proposed recovery of service tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant contested that the sundry debtors in their balance sheet cannot be treated as the value of service, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal held that unrealized receivables from sundry debtors cannot be considered as the value of service and set aside the demand.

Invocation of the Extended Period:
The department invoked the extended period based on an audit revealing non-payment of service tax. The Tribunal ruled that the mere fact that the liability was uncovered due to an audit cannot be the sole reason for invoking the extended period. The responsibility for ensuring payment of service tax rests on the officers, even in the self-assessment regime.

Suppression of Facts:
The department alleged suppression of facts by the appellant, but the Tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade payment of service tax. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that without establishing intent to evade duty, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. As such, the department wrongly invoked the extended period, and the order was set aside.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, allowing the appeal based on the lack of evidence of intent to evade payment of service tax and the incorrect invocation of the extended period of limitation. The judgment was pronounced on 19/03/2024 by the Tribunal.

---