TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h differential figures appearing in the Trial Balance and ST-3 returns, the Revenue authorities held that the difference in the two set of figures represent the value of taxable services on which due service tax had not been paid. A very high-pitched demand of Rs. 12,90,84,396/-was proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2020. 2.2 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 as appearing in the Ledger accounts by deeming all the entries appearing in such ledger accounts are against taxable services rendered based on assumption and presumption despite the fact that an audit has been carried out. It was further pleaded that the burden of proof was on the Revenue as it has alleged short payment of service tax. Furthermore, no reasons have been stated as to why the differential figures represent the value of taxable services on which the appellant has not paid service tax. 2.3 The Adjudicating Authority remanded the matter for further verification to the Range Office and thereafter confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,23,294/- plus a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 Tribunal, relying 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 neutral cases. Therefore, the entire demand is hit by limitation and therefore needs to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity correctly and reflecting the same correctly 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 the relevant services) and the transaction value as per ST - 3 returns (after abetment as applicable for relevant services). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en 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 the said allegation lies with them to substantiate the allegations. In Kush Constructions vs CGST, Kanpur [2019(24)GSTL 606(T....