Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (11) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 (Prov. Assessment/ST) dated 20.05.2010 wherein it was alleged that the appellants had short paid service tax to the tune of Rs.26,04,499/-. This was based on the values shown in the "sub ledger for telephone" had not matched the values declared in the ST-3 Returns filed. This was followed by other Show Cause Notices (3/2010 (Prov. Assessment/ST) dated 28.5.2010; 2/2011 (Prov. Assessment/ST) dated 9.6.2011; 3/2011 (Prov. Assessment/ST) dated 9.06.2011) for the subsequent periods 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10. Thus, a total sum of Rs.30,74,946/- was demanded for the period from April 2006 to March 2010. 2.2 On adjudication, the Order-in-Original Sl. No. MAD-ST-OOO-ASC-001-15 dated 23.01.2015 was passed confirming the demand raised. The Appellants being aggrieved by the same, appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai who after due process of Law, rejected the Appeal vide Order-in-Appeal No. 53/2015 dated 19.05.2015. 2.3 Being aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this forum. 3. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Ravindran appeared for the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, appeared for the revenue and both have made their submissions. 4. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r on the very next day i.e. 19.05.2015. Therefore, it is submitted that the resultant Impugned Order is nothing but a premeditated order and a result of abuse of process of appellate proceedings under CEA, 1944 read with Finance Act, 1994. 5. On the other hand, the Authorized Departmental Representative Mr. Sanjay Kakkar appeared and re-iterated the findings of the Lower Adjudicating Authorities. He submitted that there is no merit in the Appeal and made a plea for rejection on the grounds of merit. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of both the sides, carefully perused the appeal records and the case laws relied upon. 7. We find that the issues to be decided in this appeal are as to: - i. Whether the demand raised on non-taxable services like public village telephones provided to the village panchayats is justified? ii. Whether the amount collected as arrears pertaining to the earlier period should be taxed at the rate applicable on the date of realization or on the date on which the invoice is raised? iii. Whether the evidence produced has been ignored at the time of finalization by Lower Adjudicating Authority and if not when the same was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax paid by them actually reflects their liability cannot be accepted." 8.2 We find that several tribunal decisions have addressed the discrepancy between ST-3 returns and accounting records like the ABF (Advance Billing/Booking and Finance) ledger in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) service tax cases. A key principle established is that a demand for service tax cannot be confirmed based solely on mismatch of figures if a proper reconciliation is provided and no intent to evade tax is proved. Here we find that reconciliation statements have been filed with the Adjudicating authority but not taken into consideration for the reasons but known to the Lower Adjudicating Authorities. 8.3 We have examined the appellant's Letter vide TR-II/ST/Genl. Corr/2012-14/45 Dated at KKD, the 03/01/2015 (Page No 83 of Appeal Paper Book) along with the worksheet attached thereto detailing the reasons for differences in the figures shown in their records Vis-à-vis service tax returns filed. 8.4 The collection of ST in a particular month includes not only bills for the same month but also the old bills which have been issued long back with appropriate service Tax prevalent during the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....conciliation of service tax." 8.9 From the above, we find that the Department has not properly examined the issues pointed out by the Appellant like exclusion of non-taxable services like VPT which is exempted from Service Tax and the difference on account of rounding of the telephone Bills to nearest Rupee have not been factored in the findings, as a huge volume of Bills were involved during the period taken up for Finalisation. The software provided cannot be disregarded for assessment as department has no other independent method to arrive at the details on its own to rebut the Appellants contentions. Therefore, reliance has to be placed on the Appellants records. Moreover, the Appellant is the Government of India Enterprise and there cannot be any malafide intention to mislead the Department for pecuniary gains. 8.10 As the above details have not been weighed in for finalization, the excess demand or difference is bound to occur, and so we cannot concur with the findings in the impugned order solely on this account. 8.11 Further, the department must provide independent evidence that the services were taxable and not merely rely on a mismatch between internal accounting....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he year in the taxable value for that period for which it relates i.e. the period in which the services were rendered but the rate of service tax on the realization date should prevail for computation of service tax payable. Whereas the appellant's contention is that the arrears relate to services rendered and billed in previous periods, on which Service Tax was already assessed/provisioned under the earlier rate. When arrears are later realized: * No new service is provided, * The liability, if any, had already arisen in the earlier period, * Payment on receipt of value prior to 1.7.2011: Under the rule 6(1) of S T Rules 1994, service tax was payable on the value of taxable services received during a particular period, even if the service was billed at an earlier date. 9.2 We find that the service tax rates during various periods is as follows: - 01/07/1994 to 13/05/2003 @ 5% 14/05/2003 to 09/09/2004 @ 8% 10/09/2004 to 17/04/2006 @ 10.2% 18/04/2006 to 11/05/2007 @ 12.24% 12/05/2007 to 23/02/2009 @ 12.36% 24/02/2009 to 31/03/2012 @ 10.3% 01/04/2012 onwards @ 12.36% 9.3 We fin....