2024 (11) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Rs.10,76,44,875/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty under Section 75 and 78 of the Finance Act,1994 FA, 1994 respectively. 2. Facts of the case are that during the course of an audit, the figures of ST-3 Returns filed during the period, April 2015 to June 2017, was compared with the ledger account balance appearing in the Trial Balance for the said period. On the basis of the comparative figures as appearing in the Trial balance and the ST-3 Returns, the difference in the two set of figures indicated the value of taxable services on which due service tax was not paid by the appellant. These values pertained to the Works Contract Services, Legal Consultancy Services and Security Services received by the appellant, where they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur Excise Appeal No.53026 of 2018 [Final Order No.51135/2022 dated 02.12.2022], the learned Counsel submitted that invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that non-payment could not have come to their knowledge had the audit not been conducted by the Department is unsustainable. He also submitted that on the principle of revenue neutrality, the extended period is not invocable as the appellant was entitled to avail and utilise the credit of service tax paid under RCM against its output, excise duty on coal. Reference was invited to the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in Asmitha Microfin Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments. The appeal, therefore deserves to be dismissed. 7. The issue whether service tax can be demanded on the basis of the difference in the figures as reflected in the Trial Balance and ST-3 Returns is no longer res-integra as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the decisions in Go Bindas Entertainment Private Limited (supra) and M/s Kush Constructions (supra), where it has been held that no demand can be confirmed by comparing the ST-3 Returns with balance sheet figures in the absence of any evidence to prove the same that income in the balance sheet reflects the providing of taxable services. Since it is the Revenue, who is making the allegations as such the onus to prove the said allegation lies heavily upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... evident. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in revenue neutral cases, it was held that the entire demand is hit by limitation and is accordingly set aside. Same principle would apply in the present case and there is no reason to differ from the same as the entire demand proposed in the show cause notice falls within the extended period of limitation and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. The show cause notice dated 15.07.2020 has been issued for the period April 2015 to June 2017, and hence, the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation, however, the extended period of limitation has been invoked on the ground that the non-payment wo....