TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Value was shown as Rs.15,37,97,401/- as per Trial Balance whereas the same was declared as Rs.11,36,95,869/- as per the ST-3 Returns. After according abatement, the Service Tax paid was alleged to be short paid. Consequently, the Appellant was issued with a SCN No. 58/2013-ST-ADC dated 23.09.2013 in which the differential Service Tax on the above said Taxable Value which worked out to Rs.12,39,137/-was demanded along with appropriate interest and proposal to impose penalty, invoking the extended period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act. 1.3 The Appellant has contended that the Balance Sheet/Trial Balance and ST-3 Returns were prepared under different accounting procedure and therefore, the difference would exist. It is an established principle to reconcile such differences before levelling allegation of short payment. During the relevant period, the service tax was paid, and the ST-3 Returns were maintained on 'actual payment' basis. The Appellant submits that the extended period is not invokable and the demand is barred by limitation of time. Further, the entire issue is revenue neutral as the Appellant can avail CENVAT credit and therefore the question of int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debits are payments towards GTA services and therefore the Impugned Order merits to be set aside on this ground alone. v. that the burden to establish taxability of differential amount as per books of accounts is on the Department. vi. she has highlighted that the reconciliation statement as well as Chartered Accountant's Certificate indicating that there is no short payment of service tax by the Appellants during the disputed period. vii. that the difference between ST-3 Returns and Trial Balance is bound to occur as Trial Balance is prepared on accrual basis whereas ST-3 Returns are filed based on actual payment towards GTA Services. viii. that the Service tax liability has been rightly discharged by the Appellant based on actual payment towards GTA services in terms of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules. The very basis of the demand that all debit entries imply payment towards Service tax is incorrect and contrary to accounting principles. ix. that the impugned order has brushed aside the documents submitted by the Appellant without any sound reasoning. It is also a well settled position of law that a Certificate issued by a profes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeared for the Respondent and reiterated the findings in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2015 dated 09.02.2015 by the Lower Authority and submitted that there is no merit in the Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the records and also the case laws submitted as relied upon. 5. We observe that the demand is confirmed/upheld merely because of the difference between ST-3 Returns and Trial Balance, and on the presumption that all debits are payments towards GTA services. The Appellant has submitted a reconciliation statement as well as Chartered Accountant's Certificate indicating that there is no short payment of service tax by the Appellants during the disputed period. 6. Thus, the main issue for consideration is 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. The issue is no longer res-Integra as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the decisions in M/s. Go Bindas Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, (Noida) [2019 (5) TMI 1487-CESTAT ALLAHABAD] and M/s. Kush Constructions Versus CGST ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that mere difference in figures appearing in the Trial Balance as compared to the ST-3 Returns without any corroborative evidence that taxable services had indeed been provided by the appellant cannot be upheld. In case of M/s. GEPS Projects Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida [2018 (9) TMI 1517-CESTAT, ALLAHABAD], it was held that issuance of Show Cause Notice demanding differential duty for difference in the receipts as per Balance Sheet as compared to ST-3 Returns as unsustainable which reads as below: - "5. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the show cause notice is misconceived. It is a clear case of misreading the financial statement and the returns of the appellant. From the very reading of the show cause notice and the table referred to herein above, which is reproduced from the show cause notice, we are satisfied that the show cause notice is wholly misconceived as the amount of gross receipts shown in the balance sheet, is the adjusted amount after adjusting the opening and closing sundry creditors debtors, if any. Further, gross receipts/sales is the credit balanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The said Tax has been paid during the respective months as and when due as per law." 9. In the impugned order, however, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, without commenting upon the correctness of such certificate, completely brushed the same aside without any legal basis. This issue was not looked into by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. We do not agree with the reason given by the Ld. Adjudicating / Appellate Authority to reject the CA Certificate in the absence of any cogent reasons. It is trite law that a certificate from an expert in the accounting profession has immense evidentiary value. Therefore, such a certificate ought to have been objectively examined. We observe that this view has been held in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. (Import & General) [2014 (302) E.L.T. 501 (Del.)]. Further, such a certificate cannot be brushed aside without providing another expert opinion to the contrary. This view has been held in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Guntur vs. Empee Sugar & Chemicals [2007 (2011) E.L.T. 293 (Tri. Bang.)] and Business Overseas Corporation v. CC, New Delhi [2015 (317) E.L.T. 637 (Tri. Del.)]. Department has failed to discharge th....