TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e also holding PAN No. AAHPM3360Q for the purpose of income tax purpose. The appellant was also erroneously allotted by the departmental AIO portal one another Service Tax Registration being No. AAHPM3360QST002, which was not operational. 2.3 During the course of verification of ST-3 Return data filed by the appellant with the data regarding declared turnover in Income Tax Return (ITR)/Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) through 26AS for the year 2015-16, the department had come to a conclusion that the ST-3 return indicated lesser taxable value of services at Rs.4,20,000/-, whereas the ITR data indicated the total value of services as Rs.14,40,000/- resulting into a differential value of taxable services of Rs.10,20,000/-. Thus, the department had concluded that the appellant had not declared the turnover of services to the above extent and that service tax on the value of Rs.10,20,000/- at the higher rate of 14.50%, had not been paid by the appellant. The department had applied higher rate of tax, in the absence of month-wise break-up figures of taxable services, to determine and apply the relevant tax rate of 12.36% upto 31.12.2014 & 14.50% from 01.01.2015. 2.4 On the above basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the facts of the case has not been taken into consideration by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed by her may be considered by the Tribunal, by not applying the threshold limit prescribed under the second proviso to Section 35B(1) ibid, since the tax demand is less than Rs.2 lakhs. In the additional written submission filed, in lieu of miscellaneous petition, the appellant has stated that since the appeal raises pure question of law relating to confirmation of adjudged demands in the absence of service of SCN as per law, her appeal may be admitted though the tax amount is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. As the submission of the appellant through her counsel has force, as the basic question of legality of quasi-judicial proceedings conducted without due service of SCN and that in the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that the appeal can be taken up for consideration and disposal without applying the threshold limit as per second proviso to Section 35B(1) ibid. 4.1 The Original authority had confirmed the adjudged demand of service tax on the appellant vide Order-in-Original dated 21.03.2021, by computing taxable value on whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entire service tax along with interest and the amount of reduced penalty within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. (iv) I also impose a Penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) for failure to declare the value of taxable service in their periodical ST-3 Returns. (v) I also impose a Penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) for non-submission of documents to the department. (vi) I also impose a Penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) under Section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) for failure to pay service tax electronically as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Since SCN No.76/AC/Dn.IX/R-V/HRR/2020-21 dated 30.12.2020 issued under F. No. CGST/M.South/Div-IX/R-V/ITR-TDS/Misc.1515/2019 is duplication of demand of service tax for the same financia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason/s to reduce and waive the other penalties held recoverable from the appellant by lower authority under Section 77(1)(c), 77(1)(d) and 77(2) of the Act. Hence, uphold unchanged the same." 5. In the above backdrop of the case, the short issues for determination before the Tribunal are the following: (i) whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax, in respect of the value of renting of immovable property Service at Rs.13,83,594/- as short reported in the ST-3 returns as opposed to the Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2015-16, in terms of the Finance Act, 1994 and in specific reference to the facts of the case? (ii) whether the impugned order dated 14.11.2023, in rejecting the appeal filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding the order of original authority in confirmation of adjudged demands including imposition of penalties on the appellant, is correct or not, in terms of the facts of present case? 6.1 On perusal of the facts of the case and the documents submitted by the appellant, the following facts are relevant for consideration: (i) SCN No.75/AC/Dn.IX/R-V/HRR/2020-21 dated 30.12.2020 was issued to the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,63,594/- are liable to service tax and such tax has not been paid by the appellants. This is apparent from the findings given by the original authority in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the adjudication order dated 21.03.2023, and in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned order dated 14.11.2023 of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8.1 In this regard, I find that Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had considered the appropriate action to be taken by the field formations, in similar situation as the one referred in this case and issued instructions dated 26.10.2021, which is extracted and given below: "Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs *** New Delhi dated 26.10.2021 Subject : Indiscreet Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by Service Tax Authorities - Reg. Representations have been received from various trade bodies and associations regarding instances of indiscriminate issuance of demand notices by the field formations on the basis of ITR-TDS data received from Income Tax Department. 2. In this regard, the undersigned is directed to inform that CBIC vide instruction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tunity of personal hearing is denial of principles of natural justice, and such orders are liable to be set aside. 8.4 On perusal of the relied upon cases, I find that the underlying principle decided in those cases is that the serving of valid show cause notice is essential and providing sufficient opportunity for personal hearing to the noticee is sine qua non for any proceedings held in any quasi-judicial process. The relevant paragraphs dealing with such issues in the case of Baideep Singh (supra) is as follows: "9. In the present case inspite of opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the show cause notice. Further, from perusal of the order-in-original, I find that the Adjudicating Authority have not recorded satisfaction of service of show cause notice and have proceeded to pass the ex-parte order-in-original, which is held to be a nullity in the eyes of law. Substituted service by way of affixation on the notice board of the Department is by way of last resort. In the facts of the present case, I find that without identifying, the noticee, nor taking any reasonable measures of any substituted service as mentioned in clause (d) and (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the respondents to furnish proof of delivery. In the absence of any proof of delivery, it cannot be said that there is effective service of notice, as contemplated under Section 37C of the Act. In the absence of service of notice of personal hearing, the petitioners or their representative could not remain present before the adjudicating authority during the course of personal hearing and hence, the impugned order which has been passed ex parte is clearly in breach of principles of natural justice. xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. As discussed hereinabove, in view of the fact that the notice for personal hearing was not served upon the petitioners in accordance with law, no one could remain present for personal hearing on behalf of the petitioners on the dates specified in the notice and the adjudicating authority has proceeded on the footing that three adjournments have been granted and has passed and the impugned ex parte order. Such order is, therefore, clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 8.6 On perusal of the above decisions of the Tribunal ....