AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal No. 36/ST/ APPL-MRT/MRT/2023-24 dated 31.05.2023 filed by M/s V.S. Travels Solutions, 383/2, Chaube Compound, Western Kutchery Road, Near HDFC Bank, Meerut, against Order-in-Original No.212ST/AC/MZN-1/2022-23 dated 03.04.2023 is disposed of in the above terms." 2.1 Appellant was registered with the Department with S Tax registration No. AKDPJ0109JSD001 for providing taxable services as defined by Section 65B (44) of the Act. 2.2 On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department that they had received Rs.64,95,326/- in their ITR during the financial year 2016-17. Inquiries were made and on comparison of the figures with ST-3 filed by the appellant following have been observed:- Period Total Sale of Services (ITR) Total Value for TDS (including 194C, 194Ia, 194Ib, 194J, 194H) Total Gross value Provided (Service Tax Return) Difference between value of services from ITR & Gross value in STR Rate of Service Tax Total payable amount of Service tax 2016-17 64,95,326 64,95,326 0 64,95,326 15% 9,74,299. 2.3 Appellant was asked to clarify in respect of the differences so noticed and were asked to provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red Ninety Nine only) from them in terms of the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Further as the party have deposited amount of Rs.1,49,733/- vide GAR-7 challans, the same is being appropriated against the above said demand. (ii) I also demand and order to recover interest on the aforesaid amount of service tax as mentioned in para (i) from them, in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. (iii) I impose penalty of Rs.9,74,299/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Seventy Four thousand Two hundred Ninety Nine only) upon the party under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 with an option to the party, under proviso to Section 78 to pay 25% of the penalty amount provided they pay the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest payable thereon as ordered in para (ii) above, within 30 days of the communication of this order. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from them, in terms of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....berately suppressed by the appellant from the Department with an intent to evade payment of tax. Thus, there are sufficient and cogent grounds for invocation of extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. 6.5 However, I find the notice the impugned SCN in this case was issued on 21.04.2022. The 'relevant date' i.e. the last date of filing the ST-3 return for the period April to September 2016 was 25.10.2016, therefore, the demand for this period, even by invoking the extended period clause, should have been served upon the appellant within five years from the 'relevant date' latest by 25.10.21. Thus, I am of the view that no service tax can be demanded vide the impugned SCN dated 21.04.22 for the services rendered during the first half of the financial year 2016-17. 6.6 I find that the demand in instant SCN has been raised on the receipts of Rs.64,95,326/- recorded in the TDS records. Upon perusal of Form 26AS, the sale of service for the first half (i.e., from April to September 2016) is Rs.21,12,020/- and for the second half (i.e., from October to March 2017) is Rs. 43,83,306/-. Therefore, I hold that the demand of Rs.3,16,803/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice records as follows:- "Whereas, from the facts mentioned above, they have suppressed the fact of not paying Service Tax on taxable value willfully with intent to evade the payment of service tax. Thus, it is evident that non-payment of Service Tax on the said Services came to the notice of the Department only during investigation by the department on the data shared by the Income Tax department. In view of above the service tax of Rs. 9,74,299 (including SBC and KKC)is recoverable from the party in terms of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 by applying the provisions of extended period, which is squarely applicable in view of the above facts, along with interest payable under Section 75 of the said Act. Thus whereas it appears that the party have contravened the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax, the penalty also appears to be imposable upon them under Section 78(1) of the Act, ibid in view of above. 5. It therefore appears that the party suppressed the material facts from the Department and contravened the provisions of the Act and Rules mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llful misstatement"and pointed to the use of the word "misutilizing"in the following statement found in the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Raipur in furtherance of its claim : "The noticee procured 742.51 kl of furnace oil valued at Rs. 54,57,357/- without payment of customs duty by misutilizing the facility available to them under Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997" 22. We are not persuaded to agree that this observation by the Commissioner, unfounded on any material fact or evidence, points to a finding of collusion or suppression or misstatement. The use of the word "willful"introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of the appellant by gauging its actions, which is an indication of one‟s state of mind. Black‟s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (pp 1599) defines "willful"in the following manner :- "Willful. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass... An act or omission is "willfully"done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11-A of the Central Excise Act in Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. (supra) has observed that in order to attract the proviso to Section 11-A(1) it must be shown that the excise duty escaped by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement of suppression of fact with intent to evade the payment of duty. It has been observed : "...Therefore, in order to attract the proviso to Section 11A(1) it must be alleged in the show-cause notice that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact on the part of the assessee or by reason of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duties by such person or his agent. There is no such averment to be found in the show cause notice. There is no averment that the duty of excise had been intentionally evaded or that fraud or collusion had been practiced or that the assessee was guilty of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. In the absence of any such averments in the show-cause notice it is difficult to understand how the Revenue could sustain the notice under the proviso t....