TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O Barajamda, West Singbhum-833221, which started in December, 2010. The Appellant got registered under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 in the year 2006 under the name and style of M/s. Interstate Syndicate, Barbil, Odisha with the Superintendent, Barbil Range in the state of Odisha under Bhubaneswar-II Commissionerate vide registration bearing No.AAAFI4408CST001 which was granted on 30.06.2006 for providing 'Mining of Mineral Services', 'Goods Transport Agency Services' and 'Business Auxiliary Services'. During the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, Service Tax Returns were filed with the jurisdictional Range Superintendent, Barbil (Odisha). They surrendered their registration in the state of Odisha on 03.06.2010. The demand in the instant case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of Rs. 6,64,44,759/-, but failed to pay Service Tax of Rs. 78,83,271/- along with interest under Section 75 during the period 2007-08 to 2009-10 and also failed to take registration in the state of Jharkhand. The Appellant is also required to show cause why penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act should not be imposed. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the Service Tax demand of Rs. 67,04,137/- under the category of 'Mining of Mineral Services' defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy), Service Tax demand of Rs. 8,70,132/- is confirmed under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' defined under Section 65(105)(zzzb) and Service Tax demand of Rs. 3,09,002/- under the category of 'Cargo Handling Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment. ii) The Appellant was operating from its premises in Odisha during the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10 and therefore, the question of payment of tax in the state of Jharkhand does not arise. iii) The Appellant is a proprietorship concern and that their offices in Odisha and Jharkhand are merely two office premises under the same proprietorship. iv) Service Tax demand of Rs. 8,70,132/- confirmed under the category 'Business Auxiliary Service' is outside the scope of the Show Cause Notice, as no Service Tax was proposed under the said category in the Show Cause Notice. Similarly, demand of Rs. 2,57,502/- under the category 'Cargo Handling Service' is also outside the scope of the Show Cause Notice. v) The demand of Service Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IPS7146F represents an individual whose surname starts with 'S'; in this case Sri Bhim Sharma. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant M/s.Interstate Syndicate is the proprietorship concern of Mr. Sharma and that they had obtained registration under a different PAN is factually incorrect. M/s. Interstate Syndicate is a firm/LLP, although no documents in respect of its constitution have been produced before us. In view of the above, we find that under the eyes of law, M/s. Interstate Syndicate and Prop. Bhim Sharma are separate legal entities and the attempt on the part of the Appellant to mislead this Tribunal and the Adjudicating authority is unwarranted. In this view of the matter, we find that the services provided by the Appellant i....