Form 26AS data alone cannot sustain service tax demand without independent proof of taxable liability and limitation.

Service tax liability cannot be sustained merely from Form 26AS or similar income-tax data unless supported by independent corroborative evidence showing the taxable service and the correct person liable to tax. In the stated analysis, invoices explained the receipts as manpower services, for which liability lay on the recipient under reverse charge, and the demand based only on third-party tax data was rejected. The discussion also notes that limitation must be independently established; a notice founded only on such data may fail on time-bar grounds as well. The pre-deposit defect was treated as cured where the challans collectively covered the required amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had complied with the pre-deposit requirement and cured the defect in the appeal papers. (ii) Whether service tax could be sustained solely on the basis of Form 26AS data and the receipts reflected therein. (iii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had complied with the pre-deposit requirement and cured the defect in the appeal papers.

Analysis: The challans produced by the appellant, when taken together, covered the required pre-deposit against the litigated amount. The refusal to accept those challans was held to be unsustainable, and the defect memo was treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit condition was held to be fulfilled and the defect was cured.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax could be sustained solely on the basis of Form 26AS data and the receipts reflected therein.

Analysis: The receipts appearing in Form 26AS were explained through invoices showing that the appellant had rendered only manpower services. For such services, tax liability lay on the recipient under the reverse charge mechanism. The demand was found to rest only on Income Tax data without corroborative material establishing taxable liability.

Conclusion: The confirmed service tax demand was set aside on merits.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand was also examined on the question of limitation and was found to be unsustainable on time-bar grounds as well, following the same line of authority disapproving indiscriminate notices based merely on third-party income-tax data.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the demand was annulled, and consequential relief was directed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be sustained merely on the basis of Form 26AS or similar income-tax data unless supported by independent corroborative evidence establishing taxable service and liability; limitation must also be independently satisfied.

---