TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on pro-rata basis. Thus, the gross value declared for the entire financial year 2017-18 has been taken into account as the taxable value for the three months from April, 2017 to June, 2017. However, the officers observed that in the ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant during the relevant period, their gross taxable value has been shown as NIL. The department has considered the gross value declared in the Income Tax Returns as the value of taxable for the period 2015-16 to June and calculated the gross suppressed taxable value as Rs. 1,69,10,588/-. 1.2. On the basis of the data received from CBDT, a Show Cause Notice under C No. V(15)32/BLP/Adjn/BHWN/CGST&CX/KS/2020- 21/2407 dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 25,10,850/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.3. On adjudication, the Ld. adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax raised in the Notice along with interest and imposed equal amount of tax as penalty. 1.4. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-I) vide Appeal Order No. 302/ST-Kol/ST/Kol-S/2024-25 dated 22.08.2024 did not agree with the calculation of demand on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II v Chartered Logistics Ltd. [(2024) 16 Centac 474 (SC)]. 2.2. Thus, by relying on the ratio of the decision cited supra, the appellant submitted that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and prayed for setting aside the same. As the demand of service tax is not sustainable, the appellant prayed that no penalty imposable. 2.3. Regarding the issue of limitation, the appellant submits that the entire demand was raised and confirmed in the impugned order on the basis of data received from CBDT which were always available with the department. Therefore, there has been no suppression of the facts with intention to evade the tax established in this case. Thus, the appellant submits that invocation of extended period is not warranted in the instant case. In support of this claim, the appellant relied on the following decisions: (i) M/s. Munna Construction v CCE&ST [Final Order No. 77625/2024 dated 22.11.2024] (ii) Arya Logistics v CCE &ST Rajkot [ST Appeal No. 12389 of 2014 DOD 17.08.2023] (iii) Balajee Machinery v Comm of CGST &Excise, Patna-II [2022(66) GSTL 440 (T-Kol)] 3. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purpose of tax deducted at source, etc. being the relevant data for Income Tax. Whereas under the Service Tax provisions, the service tax is chargeable on mercantile basis (accrual basis) on the service provided whether the value of such service is received or not. Thus, we find that the whole basis of show cause notice is incorrect and/or misconceived." 5.3. In this regard, I also find it pertinent to refer to the decision rendered in the case of M/s. GopiChenna v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal - GST [Final Order No. A/30078-30079/2024 dated 26.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 30412 of 2023 & anr. - CESTAT, Hyderabad], wherein a similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal at Hyderabad. The relevant observation of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case is reproduced below: - "7. On going through the records of the case, it is clear that the cases are made on the basis of third party data i.e., amounts reflected in Income Tax Returns and in Form 26AS. Revenue takes the stand that in the Negative List regime, Department is not obliged to prove the provision of a particular service to demand service tax and further, the Appellants could not explain that the differe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the decision of Ved Security v. CCE, Ranchi-III - 2019 (6) TMI 383 CESTAT, Kolkata wherein it was held that the value of taxable services cannot be arrived at merely on the basis of the TDS statements filed by the clients inasmuch as even if the payments are not made by the client, the expenditure are booked based on which the Form 26AS is filed, which cannot be considered as value of taxable services for the purpose of demand of Service tax." 5.6. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, I hold that the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order, solely relying the data received from CBDT, without adducing corroborative evidence in support, cannot be sustained. Thus, I observe that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. 6. Regarding the merits of the case, I find that the appellant were rendering the service of arranging transportation of goods. They did not issue any consignment note. I observe that the service of transportation of goods by road is liable to service tax under the category of GTA service, only when the service provider issues 'consignment notes'. As the appellant have not iss....