TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Services / Renting of Immovable Property services/ sale of Space or time for advertisement services / Business Support Services. 2. It was observed that the appellant had provided renting of immovable property service by way of awarding canteen contracts and vendor licences during the period April, 2011 to March 2014 and received consideration. Service tax was also paid on the value of services provided by them. However, when department reconciled the figures of value of service tax as provided by the appellant in ST 3 return filed by them to the figures of income tax against the same head in their ledger account, Department found that the service tax amount of Rs.2,17,36,847/- (the differential amount ) has been short paid by the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016. It is impressed upon that the limitation cannot be invoked based on the audit observations. Decision of M/s. G D Goenka Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South in Service Tax Appeal No. 51787/2022 has been relied upon. It is further submitted that these statutory bodies like the appellant cannot be fastened with the allegations having intent to evade duty. Decision in the case of M/s. Chandigarh Transport Corporation vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh I [2023 (7) TMI 363 -CESTAT Chandigarh] has been relied upon. It is also mentioned that there is no other evidence produced by the department to prove suppression. With these submissions, the order is prayed to be set aside for the reason that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time for advertisement services and services of renting of immovable property. We observe that the appellants herein have affixed advertisements on the buses hired by the appellant corporation. The issue about the act of displaying the advertisement on the public vehicle is no more res integra. It has been held in decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V vs Incoda reported as [2004 (174) ELT 65] that realization of rental charges by display of advertisement on assessee' property cannot be called as the sale of space or time for advertisement services, the assessee not being advertising agency. The appellant in the present case is a State Transport Corporation as different from the advertisement agency. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demanded on unrealized / notional income, hence is not sustainable. Following are the settled judicial precedents on this issue. Indian Oil Sky Tanking Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore [2015 (38) STR (Tri-Bang)] and M/s. Indian Machine Tools Manufactures Association vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula. 12. Coming to the plea of invocation of extended period of limitation, we observe that only plea of department is that alleged non-payment of service tax by appellant got revealed from the audit of its records. But this aspect is no more res integra, by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajpur reported as [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]. The said decision has reported....