2018 (5) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ircuit service, franchise service etc. Scrutiny of ST-3 returns and records maintained by the appellants indicated that they had not discharged service tax liability in full for the period October 2005 to March 2006. The main allegation was that service tax paid by the tax payer as shown in the ST-3 returns for this period was less than the tax payable as calculated on the value shown in the same ST-3 returns by them for the impugned period. When the appellants had submitted that the difference in service tax payable alleged in the notice was due to the fact that they had wrongly indicated the taxable value in the ST-3 returns for the impugned period as inclusive of service tax which had resulted in calculation of service tax on the value i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resulted only due to misunderstanding of the new format of ST-3 which was made applicable from October 2005; that in the old format in Column (3), the tax payer was only required to indicate "value of taxable service charged or billed (indicate break up of the amount month wise)", whereas in the new format, in Column (1), the assessee was required to give details of "amount received towards taxable service/s provided". Ld. Advocate submits that incomplete appreciation of the new format many assessees, like them had indicated that the total value including the value on tax paid or suffered in Column (1) of the new format. The department has however taken that value as the value of taxable value of services and has demanded service tax liabil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ility under an enclosure to their reply to the Show Cause Notice on 29.5.2007. They paid an amount of Rs. 24,99,432/- which was not actually necessarily. They have since filed a claim for refund of the same. The Commissioner found discrepancies between the particulars furnished by the appellants on 18.10.2006 and on 25.5.2007 which had arisen on account of the difficulties faced by the appellants in furnishing the correct figures. However, the Commissioner had not attempted to verify and ascertain the correct figures. The reconciliation between the two sets of figures cited would have been possible only if the details like realization from exempted services, realization from export of services, realization from sales, realization towards VA....