AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e third-party data source viz. Income Tx Returns (ITR), it appeared that the appellant has declared value of services as Rs.22,69,815/- in their ITR. It was also found that the appellant did not file ST-3 returns (STR) for the year 2015 - 16. Hence the service tax liability was worked out based on the ITR as Rs.3,29,123/-. According Show Cause Notice No. 77/2021 dated 28.4.2021 was issued to the appellant alleging service tax liability of Rs.3,29,123/- by invoking the extended time limit, for the period 2015 - 16. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the entire demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 3. Dr. M. Manimaran, Ld. Advocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs under sec. 70 and sec. 82 of Finance Act, 1994. The Ld. Counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned order and thus render justice. 3.2 The Ld. AR has reiterated the points given in the impugned order and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. I have gone through the appeal memorandum and have heard the rival parties. I find that this is a case where the department has initiated action after obtaining the ITR of the appellant and comparing it with the STR. The entire amount shown as 'Sale of Service' as per the ITR was taken as the presumptive value of the service rendered during the FY 2015-16 and Service Tax of 3,29,123/- was demanded under the extended period of time along with interest and penalties under various provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of natural justice at this stage, since the grounds in the current notice are inadequate and inclusion of additional ground/ new ground would involve fresh investigation into facts, which cannot be permitted. 6. I find that a similar matter was examined by the Division Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai East Vs Mordern Road Makers Pvt Ltd., [Final Order No. 86160/2023, dated 28/07/2023]. The relevant portion is cited below; 5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. Right at the outset we have examined the show cause notice. The show cause notice dated 16.04.2019 states that the same is enclosed with two annexures. Annexure- I is work sheet. The work sheet states the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assesse. Unless such burden of proof is discharged by Revenue, such show cause notice cannot sustain. The preset show cause notice is totally presumptive. Further, the difference in turnover in ST-3 return and income tax return could be on account of non-taxable businesses. So, unless Revenue examines the reasons for the difference, it cannot demand service tax blindly on the basis of difference in the turnover reflected in the two statutory returns. This Tribunal has time and again held as follows:- a) In the case of Lord Krishna Real Infra Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 1563 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], it was held as follows:- "Further, we find that on the basis of form 26AS return filed under Income Tax Act without examining any other records o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount and records maintained by the assessee and other admissible evidence. The books of account maintained by M/s Sharma were not looked into for issue of above stated two Show Cause Notices. Therefore, the transactions recorded in the books of account cannot be held to be contrary to the facts. Therefore, we hold that the said Show Cause Notices are not sustainable. Since the said Show Couse Notices are not sustainable, appeal bearing No.ST/890/2010 filed by M/s Sharma is allowed and appeal bearing No. ST/949/2010 filed by Revenue is dismissed. Miscellaneous Applications are also stand disposed of. Cross Objection also disposed of." C) In the case of Kush Constructions [2019 (5) TMI 1248 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], it was held as follows:- ....