TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roper." 2.1 Appellant is registered with Service Tax Department as service provider with Service Tax registration no. ABAFA4854BSD001 under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. 2.2 As per the information received from the Income Tax Authorities it was observed that appellant has declared an amount of Rs.26,11,508/- in their ITR against total receipt of Rs.41,35,964/- in their 26AS. On comparison of the figures with ST-3 return, it was observed that appellant had short paid service tax during the period 2016-17 as detailed in table below:- Period Receipts as Per Service Tax 26 AS ST-3 Difference @ % Short Paid 2016-17 4135964 1686173 2449791 15 367469 2.3 Show cause notice dated 05.10.2021 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:- "(i) Service Tax amounting to Rs.3.67,469/- (including all Cesses) as narrated above, not paid by them, payable on taxable services income received during the period 201017 should not demanded and recovered from them under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 read with Section 83 of the Act, and further read with Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Demand of service tax cannot be raised on the basis of a third-party wrong data which has already been rectified. ⮚ The actual service tax liability for the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 would be as follows:- Total Receipt in F.Y. 2016-17 as per 26AS & B/Sheet Period Amount Received Rate of S. Tax in % S. Tax & Cesses Payable 1.4.16 to 31.5.16 5,22,855 14.50% 75,814 1.6.16 to 31.3.17 20,88,653 15% 3,13,298 26,11,508 3,89,112 ⮚ Appellant have against the above service tax liability already deposited amount of Rs.3,71,380/- along with interest as per the tables reproduced below:- S. No Challan No Date ST inclusive of Cess Interest Whether reflected in ST3 1 51513 28/10/2016 78623 5893 No 2 51743 29/12/2016 72314 3994 No 3 50392 17/05/2017 101989 0 Yes 4 55694 14.08.2017 0 5756 - 5 55922 14/08/2017 62972 4927 No 6 50107 30/09/2017 55482 0 No Total 371380 20570 ⮚ The difference between c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at a Central Excise officer shall serve a notice and adjudicate the same. Against this, In the instant case the demand has been issued by a Central Excise officer and has been adjudicated by a Central Excise officer and accordingly, I hold that the case has been properly adjudicated and the averments of the appellant have no basis and is legally not sustained. 8.2 1 also observe that the appellant has observed that the demand in the instant case is time barred as the same has been issued under extended period of limitation which is not liable to be invoked in the instant case and that the SCN issued without conducting any investigation into the matter. I find that as per the facts of the case, which have not even been contravened by the appellant; the appellant was providing taxable services and were receiving consideration against the same. The appellant has never disclosed the facts to the department and has not paid due service tax on the same. Further, when the department asked the appellant to explain such non-payment of Service tax, the appellant did not participated in the investigation process. Such being the conduct of the appellant, I hold that the suppression of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CR 253, held that such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis. This was so held in the context of the principle that in a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment, that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain terms of the exemption." 9. I also hold that the appellant has deliberately and with mala fide intentions have evaded the payment of Service tax and accordingly I hold that the penalty u/s 78 and 77 of the Act has correctly been imposed upon the appellant. I also hold that since the appellant has not disputed the imposition of late fee, therefore, I am not considering the same for adjudication and the same becomes absolute." 4.3 I observed that in the present case, it is not in dispute that appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department and was paying service tax on the basis of self-assessment made during the course of scrutiny of the information received from the Income Tax Department discrepancies were observed in the amount shown in ITR and the 26AS of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sited towards service tax along with the interest due on the same amount. Thus, I uphold the demand of differential amount of Rs.18,063/- (Rs.3,89,443/- - Rs.3,71,380/-) confirmed along with interest. 4.8 I also find that appellant has short paid the service tax by suppressing the correct value of the services provided. In their ST-3 return they had declared the gross receipts towards the services as Rs 16,86,173/-, whereas the total value of services provided was 26,11,508/-. It is also evident from the facts as they unfold that they had collected service tax amounting to Rs 3,89,443/- from the service recipients. They had been paying service tax, much delayed by the due date and the service tax paid for the period 2016-17 was admittedly less than the amount that was required to be paid. The intention to evade payment of tax by suppressing the value of services is thus evident. However I observe that the appellant has paid against the amount of service tax due from them an amount of Rs 3,71,380/- much prior to issuance of the show cause notice dated 05.10.2021. Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act is upheld but limited to the amount of demand of service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal or the court, as the case may be. ]" 4.9 Thus, in case appellant deposits the entire amount along with penalties as per Section 78 of the Act then the benefit of the payment of penalty be calculated to 25% of the demand confirmed would be leviable to the appellant. 4.10 I also uphold the late fee imposed upon the appellant for late/non filing of service tax return under Section 70 of the Finance Act read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the penalty imposed under Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules 1994 read with Section 77(1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994. 4.11 With the above modifications impugned order is upheld. 5.1 Appeal is disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 TDS TRACES TD5 Feconclution Analysis and Correction Enabling System Form 26AS Aassal Tas Statement veder Sertion 2834And fie Berersr Tax Ach, 1961 NOWYANCEET SOLUTIONS ITVIA KRAV ALA QUEUR, NEAR BARANSZAK - DETRADUNEREE SOLUTIONS PIEVATE LIMITED 34741.80 - 11-Me-317 - - - Ê» 431540 340 41 0 1714:34 THII - PT-May-3007 - - 30-00:316 1 - F . = 1478....