2025 (4) TMI 1576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant have earned income of Rs.1942696.5/- during the Finance Year 2012-13. Vide letter dated 13.04.2018 the appellant was asked to submit the relevant documents so that the service tax liability could have been examined. However, the appellant did not respond to the said letters. The department formed an opinion that the income received by the appellant is towards rendering a taxable service and service tax is recoverable from them in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. It has also been observed that they have not filed returns for the period 2012-13 thus they appear to have contravened the provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was also alleged to have failed to assess and pay service tax on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r is the order passed at second round of the litigation. Initially, the impugned show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 16/2018 dated 15.11.2018 confirming the demand of service tax as proposed in the impugned show cause notice. However, vide Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 362/2019 dated 04.10.2019, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with the direction to pass speaking order after verifying the correctness of abatement claimed by the appellant. Pursuant to the said directions that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.07.2021 has been passed. 3.1 It is further submitted that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals), post remand, has considered the submission of the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be allowed. 4. Per contra learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the findings of the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Specifically the findings in Para 8.2 and 8.5 of the order. It is mentioned that the appellant has failed to provide any data regarding which period of Financial Year they have received the amount of Rs.1942696.5/-. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order. 4.1 With respect to period of limitation, it is submitted since the date of filing ST-3 returns for the period October, 2012 to March, 2013 was extended up to 31.08.2013, hence, the show cause notice issued on 25.04.2018 was within the period of five years which is invokable in light of noticed suppression. Learned Departmental Representative also mentioned th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sumption. The said document produced sufficiently proves that the activity of the appellant was trading of postal stamps and the said activity is coverd under negative list, sub clause (e) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) is observed to rather have gone beyond the scope of show cause notice where he records in Para 8.2 that the TDS was deducted as apparent from Form 26AS, however, there is no such allegation in the show cause notice. Resultantly, I hold that the service tax liability has wrongly been fasten upon the appellant. 7. Further, I observe that vide show cause notice of 25.04.2018, service tax for the period 2012-13 has been proposed. Apparently, the period falls beyond the period of five years, he....