TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts of the case are that the Appellant was registered with the Department vide Service Tax registration No. AMTPK1018MSD001. On receipt of data/information from Income Tax Department under the third party data exchange policy of Government of India through Anti-evasion branch, Central GST Commissionerate Meerut on 12.02.2021 for the financial year 2016-17, it was revealed that the amount of consideration received against 'Sale of Service' during the said period was to the tune of Rs.33,99,888/- whereas on such consideration no service tax was discharged. The Department asked the party to deposit the service tax on the said amount. It was alleged that under the head 'Sale of Service (ITR)' amount of Rs.33,99,888/- was reflected, wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 73(1); Interest on the above amount of service tax be not demanded and recovered under the provisions to Section 75; Penalty be not imposed under Section 77(1)(C); and penalty be not imposed under the provisions Section 78 of the Finance Act. 4. The Original Authority observed that neither reply was filed nor appeared for personal hearing, held that the party did not provide any sufficient documentary evidence in favour of amount of Rs.33,99,888/-. He confirmed the service tax of Rs.5,09,983/- along with interest. He imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 (1)(C). 5. Being aggrieved with the above order, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 28.10.2015, received back 500000 02-09- FD Account Closed 925044 21-10- DD Canceled 98910 07-12- ICICI Policy Matured 72607.94 09-03-2017 Lucknow CWC (by mistake not taken in CWC account) 276555 Difference of certificate issued by CWC 156503 LKO & Food Corporation DDN 2029620 The Appellant submitted copy of bank statement also, hence the value of Rs.20,29,620/- is not related to turnover of milk supply. He submitted that the Appellant was supplying milk not regularly and getting the money in cash. It was further submitted that even if it is treated turnover of milk supply it is not a service but trading of milk. It is im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR/ Form 26AS statement. As far as demand on the value of Rs.13,70,268/-, which was taken from Form 26AS has already been dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). For the demand of Rs.3,04,443/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is also on the basis of computation attached with the ITR and submitted before him is not sustainable. 13. Neither in the SCN nor the Adjudicating officer or the Appellate Authority has tried to find out nature of services rendered by the Appellant. In the impugned Order-in-Appeal, Learned Commissioner (Appeals), has categorically mentioned, that demand was determined on the basis of figures shown in Computation attached with the ITR, which is without support of any other documents. I find that the said obse....