2019 (10) TMI 540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Service Tax Settlement Commission (for short 'Settlement Commission') has declined "cum tax" claim of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is rendering services of "Supply of Manpower". The Petitioner during 2011-12 to 2014-15 collected Service Tax from its clients but deposited partial amount with Service Tax authorities. The Respondent initiated an investigation against the Petitioner which culminated into Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-1). The Petitioner approached Settlement Commission vide application dated 21.03.2017(P-2) who vide impugned order dated 28.12.2017 (P-5) finally settled liability of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was granted immunity from prosecution, however penalty of Rs. 3.5 Lakh was imposed. The Set....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tended that these judgments are not applicable because facts are different and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court deals with valuation under Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. It would be useful to look at Para 5 of show cause notice dated 24.10.2016 (P-1) and Para 15(i) & (ii) of impugned order (Annexure P-5) which has been relied upon both sides. Relevant Paras extracted as below: " Para 5 of show cause notice 5. Whereas, further scrutiny of balance sheets for the financial year 2011-123 to 2014-15(RUD-VII), Form 26AS(RUD-VIII) (a statutory document under income Tax Act, showing therein those value on which TDS were deducted of the respective year), it was observed that Assessee have under declared their value of services in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cant failed to produce all copies of invoices and instead submitted a Chartered Accountant Certificate, certifying that sales invoices for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15 were inclusive of Service Tax. The Bench finds that since the applicant failed to produce the copies of all invoices, even though the applicant was entitled for cum tax benefit on the basis of sample invoices produced by the applicant, the Bench declines to grant cum tax benefit to the applicant. (ii) We also find that the applicant had not discharged their Service Tax liability even after having collected the same from their customers/service receivers. Thus, the applicant while defrauding the exchequer, garnered double benefit, firstly collected the Service Tax fr....