TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting authority after following the principles of natural justice has confirmed the demand of Rs.88,63,209/- and dropped the balance demand. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the factual details has confirmed the demand of Rs.41,01,559/- and dropped the balance confirmed demand. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. The Revenue has not filed any Appeal against the Order-in-Original passed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the Revenue has filed any Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce placed before me. 5. I find that while the Show Cause Notice was issued for Rs.1.45 Crores after first appellate stage the same got reduced to Rs.41.01 Lakhs. On going through the liability of Service Tax for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, the same is shown as Rs.41,01,559/-. The relevant table is reproduced below :- TABLE-V Period Taxable value as per impugned order Amount from replacement of spare parts Adjustment of loan amount from Tata Motors Amount from Sale of waste and Scrap Taxable Value Rate of Tax Payable amount of S. Tax S. Tax Paid as per Impugned order Liability of S. Tax 1 2 3 4 5 6= 2-(3+4+5) 7 8 9 10 2012-13 1,55,41,998 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation from Income Tax Department. It is also on record that while the Show Cause Notice was proposing to demand Rs.1.45 Crores. After proper clarification by the Appellant and verification by the lower authorities, the same was brought down to the tune of Rs.41.01 Lakhs. Admittedly, the Revenue is not agitated by the dropping of demand of over Rs.1.03 Crores. In respect of the services rendered to the Rural Areas, the appellant has not charged the Service Tax. All these point out that proper case of suppression with intent to evade payment of Service Tax has not been made out clearly against the Appellant. 8. In respect of demands made based on the Form 26AS and IT Returns, this Bench in the case of Tabassum Enterprises vs. C, CGST & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Department in Form 26AS and the extended period of limitation is not invokable." 5.2. The same view has been held by the Tribunal at Allahabad in the case of M/s.Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Allahabad [2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 345 (Tri. - All.)]observing as follows: - "12. .... ....We further find that Form No. 26AS is not a statutory document for determining the taxable turnover under the Service Tax provisions. We find that Form No. 26AS is maintained on cash/ receipt basis by the Income Tax Department for the purpose of tax deducted at source, etc. being the relevant data for Income Tax. Whereas under the Service Tax provisions, the service tax is chargeable on mercanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when there is a clear identification of service provider, service recipient and consideration paid for the same. In the absence of any such evidence of the service recipient and the service provided, service tax cannot be demanded and confirmed. For this reason, we are of the considered opinion that it is not open for the Department to raise demands on the basis of other statutory returns like Income Tax Returns or balance sheets without proving that such service has been rendered by the assessee and consideration thereof has been received. Similarly, no service tax demand can be raised and confirmed on the basis of notional income." (Emphasis supplied) 5.5. I also refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the c....