TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value of taxable services on which due service tax has not been paid. A demand of Rs. 11,36,80,999/- was proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2020. In the course of the adjudication proceedings, the appellant submitted the reconciliation statement and pleaded that the demand has been proposed without examination of the nature of the entries appearing in the Ledger accounts by deeming all the entries appearing to be against taxable services rendered. The Adjudicating Authority remanded the matter for further verification to the Range Office and thereafter confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,92,567/- plus applicable interest and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the demand proposed in Show cause notice solely on figures as appearing in Trial Balance and ST-3 returns is not sustainable. The entire demand proposed in the SCN is based solely on the difference in values as appearing in the books of accounts and the corresponding figures as reported in ST-3 Returns for the period in dispute, without even examining the nature of the entries in the alleged ledger accounts and without ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue Neutrality, in view of the fact that the entire confirmed demand for the entire period in dispute (except for the demand of Rs. 13/-under Rent-a-Cab service) was under Reverse Charge Mechanism, on which the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asmitha Microfin Ltd v Commr. Of Cus., C. Ex & ST, Hyderabad-III, [2020 (33) GSTL 250 (Tri- Hyd)] wherein the Hon'ble Bench after placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner [2017 (7) G.S.T.L. J35 (S.C.)] held that:- "However, we find that the demand is for the period April, 2009 to March, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued invoking extended period of limitation on 17-10-2014. The entire demand is under reverse charge mechanism and if the appellant had paid the service tax under reverse charge mechanism, they would have been entitled to Cenvat credit of exactly the same amounts. Therefore, the revenue neutrality in this case is evident. It has been well settled at the hands of the Apex Court in the case of Jet Airways (supra) that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in revenue ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vokable. Further, he submitted that in the era of self-assessment, the responsibility cast on the appellant to assess his duty liability correctly and reflecting the same in their ST-3 returns. Had audit not been conducted, this higher liability would not have been discovered. Therefore, the extended period had been correctly invoked. He prayed that the appeal may be set aside. 5. I have heard the Ld Counsel for the appellant and the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department. The issue before me is whether the difference in the figures found in the Trial Balance as compared to the figures declared in the ST-3 returns amounts to prima-facie short payment of service tax, and whether the invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties is correct. I find that in the impugned order the adjudicating authority has held as follows; "21. On perusal of the reconciliation statements, duly certified by the chartered accountant, and other relevant documents submitted by the notice it, I find that there are certain variations, year -wise and service -wise, between the figures of transaction value as per Trial Balance (after abetment as applicable for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment to raise demands on the basis of other statutory returns or balance sheets without proving that such service has been rendered by the appellant and consideration thereof has been received. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Synergy Audio Visual Workshop (P) Ltd., vs Commissioner [2008(10) STR 578(Tri.Bang)] held as follows: "5.1 The other ground is for confirming demands is that the appellant had shown certain amounts due from the parties in their Income Tax returns and Revenue has proceeded to demand service tax on this amount shown in the Balance Sheet. The appellants have relied on a large number of judgements which is settled the issue that amount shown in income tax returns or balance sheet are not liable for service tax..." 6.1 I find that the Tribunal in a catena of decisions has held that it is well settled law that no demand can be confirmed by comparing the ST -3 returns with balance sheet figures, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that income in the balance sheet, if excess, reflects the provision of taxable service. As it is the Revenue authorities who have made the allegations of on payment of tax, and as such, the onus to prove t....