TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(1)(c)(i) of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST, Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant was running the proprietorship firm under the name of S.S. Cargo and was engaged in providing services in the category of Transport of goods by road/goods transport agency service ("GTA services") to various companies & transporters. He was regularly filing its ST-3 returns in accordance with the provisions the Act and after deducting Tax deducted at Source ("TDS"), also regularly filed its Income Tax Returns ("ITRs"). 2.2 During the investigation, the Department on the basis of CBDT data of the appellant noticed certain discrepancies pertaining to sale of service figures as per the Service Tax Returns ("STR") and value on which TDS has been deducted as per Form 26AS and as per ITR filed for the relevant period. On the basis of these discrepancies, show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of service tax on account of short payment of tax due to mismatch between its ST-3 and 26AS/ITR returns, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant filed reply on 01.04.2021 through speed p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021, wherein also the board emphasized on the fact that demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of difference between the ST-3 returns and figures given by income tax department. Learned Counsel further submits that even otherwise also in the present case the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the services provided by them during the relevant period. She further submits that the appellant has rendered the services to body corporates who are liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as per Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. She further submits that the 'body corporate' can be interpreted as per definition under the Section 2(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 in accordance with Rule 2(1)(bc) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which includes any company incorporated outside India or company as defined under the Companies Act. Further, the learned counsel has also given the list of body corporates to whom the appellant provided GTA services which qualify as 'company' under the Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013. She further submits that the service which was rendered by the appellant to the body corporate can also be verified as per the MC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f law. She further submits that by any stretch of imagination, the appellant Rakesh Singhal cannot render any service to itself and in the absence of two separate entities as service provider and service recipient, service tax cannot be leviable. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: * General Manager, BSNL Cellular Mobile Services vs. Commr. Of GST & C. Ex., Tiruchirapalli 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 238 (Tri. - Chennai) * Executive Engineer E, C/O Bsnl vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 110 (Tri. - Del.) * M/s. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore-II Commissionerate, 2022 (61) G. S. T. L. 39 (Tri. Bang.) * State of West Bengal Vs Calcutta Club Limited- 2019 (29) GSTL 545 (SC). 4.6 She further submits that the demand of service tax has been wrongly computed; she further submits that the appellant is entitled to avail abatement in respect of GTA services rendered by the appellant by virtue of entry 7 of Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and as per the said entries the learned counsel submits that the appellant is only liable to pay on 30% of the total service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oked against the appellant. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: * Firm Foundations & Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, 2018 (4) TMI 613-MADRAS HIGH COURT * M/s New Prakash Roadways vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rohtak, Final Order No. 60484/2014, dated 22.08.2024 (CESTAT Chandigarh) * M/s Pappu Crane Service vs. Commissioner of Central Excise& Service Tax, (Lucknow), Final Order No. 71246/2019, dated 02.07.2019 (CESTAT Allahabad) 5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record and the judgments relied upon by the appellant. We find that the show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 was issued proposing demand of service tax on account of short payment of tax due to mismatch between its ST-3 and 26AS/ITR returns by invoking the extended period of limitation. We also find that the appellant did file the reply to show cause notice on 01.04.2021 but the same was not considered by the learned appellate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of service. Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 provides that where service tax is chargeable on a taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall be the consideration in money charged by the service provider. Therefore, it is primarily important to determine the value on which service tax shall be levied at a specific percentage and such value should be the value of taxable service. Clause (44) of Section 65B of Finance Act, 1994 has provided for definition of service and it has elaborately dealt with a list of activities which shall not be included in such definition. Further, Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 has provided for negative list of services where the activities covered by such negative list do not qualify to be a taxable service. Therefore, it is clear that while determining value of taxable service under Section 67 ibid, such aspect as to the activities which are covered by negative list and which are mentioned in the definition of service as those which are not covered by such definition become important. Therefore, we come to a conclusion that for arriving at amount of service tax not paid or not levied arriving at correct value of taxable service whi....