TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Bhalla & Co., is a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants and they are registered with the Service Tax Department. On the basis of third party information received from the Income Tax Department, it was observed that for the financial year 2015-16, the assessee had shown gross receipts of Rs.31,60,549/- in their ST-3 Returns, whereas the gross receipts shown in their ITR is Rs.39,09,800/-. Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee to explain the reasons for the difference. It also proposed to demand Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,08,641/- on the differential value alongwith applicable interest and to impose penalties under various Sections. The Adjudicating Authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 22.03.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption of payment of service tax on receipt basis provided the turnover in the previous year i.e. financial year 2014-15 was less than Rs.50 lakhs. He further showed their financial year statements and Profit and Loss account of financial year 2014-15 which shows total receipts of Rs.24,38,792/-. He further submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation since the SCN was issued only on 30.03.2021 whereas the period of limitation expired on 25.09.2018. I find that there is no dispute that the Appellant have been regularly filing ST-3 returns. A similar matter of limitation had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G. D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., (Final Order No.51088/2023 dated 21.08.2023). In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-assessment itself is held to establish wilful suppression with an intent to evade. To invoke extended period of limitation, one of the five necessary elements must be established and their existence cannot be presumed simply because the assessee is operating under self-assessment. 19. It has also been pointed out that but for the audit, the allegedly irregularly availed CENVAT credit would not have come to light. It is incorrect to say that but for the audit, the alleged irregular availment of CENVAT credit would not have come to light. It is undisputed that the Appellant has been self-assessing service tax and filing ST-3 Returns. Unlike the officers, the assessee is not an expert in taxation and can only be expected to pay servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of taking action if they do not assess and pay the tax correctly squarely rests on the central excise officer, i.e., the officer with whom the Returns are filed. For this purpose, the officer may require the assessee to produce accounts, documents and other evidence he may deem necessary. Thus, in the scheme of the Finance Act, 1994, the officer has been given wide powers to call for information and has been entrusted the responsibility of making the correct assessment as per his best judgment. If the officer fails to scrutinise the returns and make the best judgment assessment and some tax escapes assessment which is discovered after the normal period of limitation is over, the responsibility for such loss of Revenue rests squarely on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight is neither legally correct nor is it consistent with the CBEC's own instructions to its officers." 5. Finally, the Division Bench allowed the appeal on limitation by summing up its observation in para 25 as under :- "To sum up: a) The Appellant assessee was required to file the ST 3 Returns which it did. Unless the Central Excise officer calls for documents, etc., it is not required to provide them or disclose anything else. b) It is the responsibility of the Central Excise Officer with whom the Returns are filed to scrutinise them and if necessary, make the best judgment assessment under Section 72 and issue an SCN under Section 73 within the time limit. If the officer does not do so, and any tax esca....