TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 173 && Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) I confirm the demand of interest on the amount of Service Tax mentioned at (i) above under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 & Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (iii) I impose Penalty amounting to Rs.4,57/416/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousands Four Hundred Sixteen Only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 & Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (iv) I impose Penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Section 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 & Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (v) I impose Penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 & Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (vi) I impose Penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 & Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. (vii) I impose Late fee amounting to Rs. 5,00/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) under Rule 7C of the Rules read with Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at (1) above should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for failure to pay service tax & suppressing the facts and value of taxable service with intent to evade payment of service tax. (iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for failing to keep maintain or retain books of account and other documents as required in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or the rules made thereunder. (v) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for not furnishing documents in response to the summons. (vi) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for not depositing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to show the exact nature of services provided by them. Moreover, they also failed to submit copies of the invoices/bills raised by them, ledgers or any other relevant. documents evidencing providing services to the overseas clients during the relevant period. Mere claim of the appellant is not to suffice to establish that the export of services had taken place during the said period. The appellant has although produced copy of the Balance sheet for the F.Y 2015-16 showing receipt of Rs.18,17,247.83 and Rs. 12,92,769.55 as foreign exchange during the F.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17. As no invoices/bills evidencing providing services to the foreign based clients are available on record, I find no relevancy of the figures shown in the said Balance sheet as it is not possible to derive the exact nature of services provided by the appellant to the overseas clients during the relevant period. In the absence of the relevant documents, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to fulfil the necessary conditions as stipulated under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to merit as 'export of services'. Therefore, I do not find merit in the appellant's said plea, hence the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Press, Wix, Shopify, etc.) and SEO tools, and the appellant perform the tasks without any physical delivery." 4.5 From the above it is quite evident that services provided by the appellant are covered under the category of IT Enabled Services not under the OIDAR. For qualifying the services under OIDAR it is necessary that the service provider owns the data which is being shared or provided through internet against the received consideration. As I find that the services do not qualify under OIDAR and these services have been provided to foreign clients for which appellant have produced invoices alongwith Bank Statement showing realization. On examination of this realization, I find that these amounts are received towards exports of service. This Tribunal in the case of M/s Wildnet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No.70434/2024 dated 18.07.2024 have held as follows:- "10. In the present case, we find that 'Search Engine Optimization' service was provided by the Appellant, which is a process whereby client's website visibility in search engines like, Google, Microsoft Bing etc. is increased. The process optimize search engine results of the client's website. After processing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not responsible for the entire network because we find that the communication lines have been leased out from the BSNL by the Andhra Pradesh Government. When they are not functioning, the appellants are not responsible and they do not lose their service charges. They are responsible and they do not lose their service charges. They are responsible only for the proper functioning of the equipment supplied by them. Moreover, the data is generated only by the Andhra Pradesh Government and the same is being used by the different wings of the Government, therefore, the appellant has also not provided any data. The responsibility of the appellant is to see that the network (WAN) functions. This cannot be equated with Online database access/retrieval services." Hence, we cannot understand how the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the appellant provides this service. The Commissioner's reference to Board's Circular with regard to internet service provided is not at all correct. In our view, the said Circular is not relevant and the services provided by the appellant are not similar to those provided by the internet service provider. In this connection, we would like to....