TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant partially by setting aside the demand except to the extent of Rs. 3,51,750/-. In this appeal, the appellant is contesting the demand to the extent of Rs. 3,51,750/-. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant is mainly contesting on the ground that the appellant, a software engineer by trade and qualification, was completely unaware of any tax compliance requirement to be taken in respect of services provided to his overseas clients as well as provided to domestic clients. Their first ground is that he has not received certain emails from the Department seeking certain information in respect of Income Tax Returns filed for the Financial Year 2015-16 for Rs.75,63,171/-. He has also pointed out that these e-mail remainders were not show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice of show cause notice itself and therefore the entire demand is required to be set aside. Appellant have also taken the ground that the demand is time barred as the demand has been raised for the period April, 2015 to September, 2015 beyond the extended period of 5 years. They have also taken the ground that Revenue could not have simply presumed that the said turnover was in respect of taxable service merely based on the Income Tax Returns/TDS, without independently verifying whether there was any service in terms Section 65 of the Finance Act. He has relied on various case laws, as under, in support that demand can not sustain on this count itself: i) Saral Wire Craft Pvt Ltd., Vs Commr of Customs [2015 14 SCC 523] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. I find that the issue lies within a narrow compass. The issue which needs to be addressed is whether in this case, the show cause notice was served properly or otherwise in terms of Statutory provisions under the Finance Act. While there is force in the submission of the Learned Advocate that e-mail is not a prescribed mode of serving, however, as pointed out by Learned AR, during the relevant period, in terms of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, service of notice through e-mail was also a permissible mode of serving the show cause notice. Learned Advocate has also argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally disposed off the Interim Order dated 23.03.2020, vide it's order dated 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the grounds that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any deliberate intent or malafide intent on their part for not paying service tax or evade service tax. In fact, the entire case is based only on details from Income Tax Returns. In this regard, I find that in the show cause notice it is apparent that the appellants were neither registered under service tax during the relevant period nor have filed any returns and that the entire computation of service tax liability has been made on the basis of total sale of service as per Income Tax Returns i.e. Rs. 75,63,171/- only. Also from the Order-in-Original, it is apparent that while examining the issue of limitation, the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....servations that the appellants are registered with the Department and are well aware of the provisions of the Finance Act relating to service tax. Later on, at para 12 also, while deciding the issue as to whether the demand based on the Income Tax Returns alone is sustainable or otherwise, he has relied on the fact that the demand was not made only on the basis of difference in the ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns, which is contrary to the fact cited in show cause notice. As can be seen, the entire demand has been made merely on the grounds of the income disclosed in the Income Tax Return and non-filing of Service Tax Returns or getting registration. Therefore, I find that the ground taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) to uphold the invo....