2023 (12) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h consideration after verification of records, the other two issues have been decided against the appellant and the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld. 2. The issues that arose for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) are : (i) non-payment of service tax on invoice dated 10.11.2013 said to have been issued by the appellant to M/s Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 2,95,61,818/- resulting in service tax liability of Rs. 36,53,841/-; (ii) short payment of service tax of Rs. 6,42,177/- as per reconciliation of balance sheet with respect to ST-3 returns; and (iii) non-payment of service tax on Rs. 31,84,835/- which was shown as "work-i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53,841/- i.e. the amount of impugned demand as detailed in para-6 above, in respect of the invoice in question. This amount of Service Tax is also mentioned in Service Tax return ST-3 filed by partner of Appellant. However, the contentious issue remains as to whether this amount indeed pertains to the discharge of Service Tax liability in respect of the invoice No. DHV/F&AIPMC-BUIDCO/118/1311 dated 10.11.2013. I would note the Appellant has not provided any records documents that would support their contention that their consortium partner has discharged the impugned liability for Service Tax as pertaining to the invoice dated 10.11.2013 because the Challan only shows the deposition of amount of Rs. 36,53,841/-, it has not been correlated t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the service tax paid by the consortium partner of the appellant was linked with the invoice issued by the consortium partner, it would be in the fitness of things that the adjudicating authority examines this issue and it would be not appropriate to examine this issue in this appeal. 7. The second issue that arises for consideration is whether the service tax to the extent of Rs. 6,42,177/- has been paid on the excess income of Rs. 51,95,614/- by the service tax recipient, namely, M/s Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. 8. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant had submitted a letter dated December 08, 2015 along with a letter submitted by M/s Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.....