TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of residential complexes under the names of Shalimar City, Officer City II, Studio One, Delhi 99 etc w.e.f. 01.07.2010 and were collecting service tax from the prospective buyers and were not depositing the same with the exchequer. Therefore, inquiries were conducted and on the basis of inquires a show cause notice dated 30 March, 2015 was issued invoking extended period of limitation and leveling allegation of suppression of facts from the knowledge of the Department and intention to evade payment of service tax. The relevant paragraphs of show cause notice are reproduced below:- "14. On scrutinizing the information provided by M/s MR Proview Real Tech Private Limited in respect of details of receipt payments against booking/selling of Flats during the period July'2010 to March'2014, it was observed that a gross amount of Rs. 428,58,76,761/- was received by them from their customers during the aforesaid period in lieu of booking/selling of Flats. The Service Tax payable on the said receipt was Rs. 12,81,63,138/- (Details tabulated as per Annexure-A to this Show Cause Notice). Whereas, as on the date of the visit of the officers, i.e. 01.08.2012, M/s MR Proview Real Tech....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to declare the said activities and consideration received against the said services in the returns, as prescribed under Section 70 of the Act ibid as they did not file the said returns and thus escaped the proper assessment of service tax. It is on record that the party had applied for registration with the Service Tax Department on 27.06.2011. As such, it appears that M/s MR Proview Real Tech Private Limited, Ghaziabad done act of omission or commission so deliberately with an intent to evade the payment of service tax as they had failed to get themselves registered under the provision of Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 during the period July 2010 to June 2011 while they were providing the taxable services. As the said act has been done by the party by allegedly suppressing the material facts from the department and by contravening the provisions and Rules made under the Finance Act, 1994, hence the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 12,81,63,138/- & Rs. 91,40,956/- leviable and payable on the amount received by them against booking/selling of Flats during the period July'2010 to March'2014 and on the advances received by them, from their various customers during the period July'2010 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal is as reproduced below:- " 11. The party have filed their defence reply vide their letter dated 05/05/2015 and interalia submitted that the demand, if any is confirmed, should not be adjusted towards the amount of Service Tax already paid by them; that the advance received by them was not advance from customers but loans taken from various parties; that the interest amounting to Rs. 1,22,95,473/- was already paid because of late deposit of Service Tax; that advance amount was loan, hence Service Tax liability arises thereon; that Service Tax was being regularly paid thereafter, so they requested to not impose any penalty. During the personal hearing on 16/03/2016, the party have submitted that advances on which demand of Service Tax was raised were actually short term loans from related parties and suppliers; that entire interest amount has already been paid." On the basis of said defence reply to the said show cause notice the Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty upon the appellant and also directed the appellant to pay interest amounting to Rs. 1,26,89,777/- and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on the other appellant. The Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012 to 24 July, 2014. Against total tax liability of around Rs. 12.81 crore, tax of around Rs. 4.05 crores was discharged from cenvat account. The appellant also filed ST3 Returns, though belatedly. b. It is an admitted fact that appellant got registered on 27 June, 2011. c. The show cause notice demanded service tax on account of delay in making payment of tax by due date. d. Notice as wrongly alleged suppression on the part of the appellant as the department visited appellant in August, 2012 whereas the appellant got registered in June 2011. e. No penalty should be imposed under Section 78 whereas tax along with interest was deposited before issuance of show cause notice. f. In respect of service tax demand of Rs. 91,40,956/-. The same was confirmed solely on the basis that in income tax document there was no declaration of said amount under the head 'loan'. g. Penalty on the director has been imposed without showing his deliberate role. h. He has relied upon following case laws:- "2017 (5) GSTL 248 (Ker.) : K T Murukan vs. Comm. (A) CCST, Cochin Final Order No. ST/A/70105-16/2019-CU(DB) Dated 17.01.2019 issued in the case of group company of appel....