2025 (7) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Proprietor of M/s Shri Sai Financial Services is providing services under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. On the basis of third party information provided by the Income Tax Department, a Show Cause Notice SCN dated 10.10.2019 was issued for the Financial Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 (upto June 2017) alleging that the Assessee has provided taxable services but have not paid the Service Tax. However, Service Tax Returns were filed much before the issuance of the SCN. The SCN proposed as to why:- (i) The Service Tax amounting to Rs. 8,77,645/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five only) including Edu. Cess, S & H Edu. Cess should not be demanded and recovered from them under the proviso to section 73(1) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.10,000/- each were imposed under Section 77 & 77(1)(c). Late fees of Rs.1,03,100/- was also imposed under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1993. 4. Consequently, the impugned Order-In-Appeal was passed holding as under:- (ii) Confirmation of demand of Service Tax (including Cesses) is reduced to Rs. 5,05,143/- along with interest; (ii) Penalty imposed upon the Appellant, under Section 78 of the Act, is reduced to Rs. 5,05,143/-; (iii) Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each imposed under Sections 77(1)(c) & 77 of the Act, shall remain unchanged; and (iv) Late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns is reduced to Rs. 3,100/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 6. I fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant that once the figures have been incorrectly taken in the SCN and the demand of Service Tax has been calculated on the incorrect figures except for the Financial Year 2016-17, this SCN is illegal and needs to be set aside. In support of his submissions. He referred to the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Kalyani Sharp India V/s C.C.E., Pune [2005 (187) E.L.T. 315 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (ii) Safari Carrier V/s C.C.E. & CGST, Allahabad [F/o No.70305/2025 dated 14.05.2025 in Service Tax Appeal No.70221 of 2024 (Tri.-All.)] 9. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the grievance of the Appellant/Assessee in respect of the inadvertent mistakes in the figures shown in the SCN have been addressed by the First Appellate Aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt cannot be held to be contrary to the facts. It was further held by this Tribunal in the case of Kush Construction V/s CGST NACIN, Kanpur reported at 2019 (24) GSTL 606 (Tri.-All.) that without examining the reasons for difference in the figures reflected in Form 26AS and ST-3 returns, Revenue cannot raise demand on the basis of such difference without establishing that the entire amount received by the Appellant as reflected in the said returns and Form 26AS being consideration for services provided and without examining whether the difference was because of any exemption or abatement. 12. Further, I note that charging Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 provides for levy of service tax at a specified percentage on the value of service. S....