2024 (5) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Returns (ITR)/ Form 26AS vis-à-vis ST3 Returns. No detailed investigation was taken up to quantify the demand of Rs.4,65,39,221/-. The Appellants have given detailed submissions and produced their audited financial records and statements and have clarified that they were paying Service Tax in respect of their taxable services which were properly recorded in the ST3 Returns. On the other hand, they were providing exempted services to the extent of Rs.13,86,52,095/- on which, no Service Tax is required to be paid. They have given the breakup of turnover of Rs.13,86,52,095/-, which is evident in Para 16 of OIO. The Adjudicating Authority has held that out of Rs.13,86,58,095/-, except for Rs.5,31,38,829/-, the balance turnover is fully....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rns, which are relied upon documents by the Revenue for issuing the present SCN. iii) The Appellant has carried bonafide belief that no Service Tax is required to be paid. Accordingly, they have not collected any Service Tax when the service was rendered to their clients. iv) At the most, the issue would be that of matter of interpretation and not that of suppression. In view of these submissions, he prays that the confirmed demand for extended period may be set aside on account of limitation also. 4. Learned AR for Revenue reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and submits that the Adjudicating Authority has gone through all the documentary evidence placed before them and has followed the principles o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....raised, has been dropped after the Appellant has brought in all the documentary evidence. This, itself shows that the demand was over-quantified without undertaking any proper verification. We also find force in the Appellant's submission that they had bonafide belief that no Service Tax is payable. Admittedly, there is no evidence brought in by the Revenue that they were charging Service Tax on their clients. All these factual details clarify that the Department has not brought in any evidence to the effect that the extended period can be invoked. Accordingly, we hold that the confirmed demand for the extended period is required to be set aside on account of limitation itself. Therefore, we set aside the Impugned Order on account of limita....