https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290093 Receipts reflected in the reconciliation statement had to be reworked on a cum-tax basis where tax was not separately collected, so the service tax demand was remitted for fresh quantification under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal accepted that booking advances later refunded on cancellation formed part of the reconciled turnover and required grossing-up for service tax. Penalty under Section 78 was not sustainable because the record did not establish suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade tax, and the departmental case was not supported against the reconciliation furnished by the appellant. The penalty was therefore deleted. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2020 19:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290093 Receipts reflected in the reconciliation statement had to be reworked on a cum-tax basis where tax was not separately collected, so the service tax demand was remitted for fresh quantification under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal accepted that booking advances later refunded on cancellation formed part of the reconciled turnover and required grossing-up for service tax. Penalty under Section 78 was not sustainable because the record did not establish suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade tax, and the departmental case was not supported against the reconciliation furnished by the appellant. The penalty was therefore deleted. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290093