AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax liability and had paid Service Tax after the due date, but interest was not paid on late payment of Service Tax. This gave rise to the reasonable belief that the assesseeʼs declaration as regards availment of CENVAT Credit in S.T .- 3 Returns may be mis-stated. Therefore, a letter dated 23.11.2015 was issued to the respondent requesting them to submit documents like copy of balance sheet, copy of Form 26AS and CENVAT documents, for verification. Subsequently, summons dated 15.02.2016 were issued to the respondent to submit the said documents, but they did not submit the documents as asked for. 4. Therefore, the premises of the respondent were visited by officers of the Anti-Evasion Unit of the Service Tax-I Commissionerate for examination of records under Rule 5A (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 on 27.05.2016. The respondent was requested to provide documents like copy of Form 26AS, copy of agreement(s) with clients, copy of CENVAT documents, along with copy of ledger, Ledger of works contract, manpower recruitment, legal and professional fees, GTA, rent-a-cab, etc., for verification 5. The respondent provided copy of Form 26AS, CENVAT ledger and ledger for l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.5,60,066/-, along with interest, and imposed an equivalent amount as penalty; a demand was also confirmed to the tune of Rs.72,070/- for the irregular CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant, along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed to this extent. However, the ld. adjudicating authority has dropped the major part of the demand raised against the respondent. 12. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before us, on the grounds that: - (i) The basic allegation behind the demand of Service Tax of Rs.15,57,64,877/- was that the values declared in the S.T .- 3 Returns, though nearly equal to the balance sheet figures in respect of some years, are much lower than the respective figures of Form 26AS in all the four Financial Years from 2011-12 to 2014-15 and the ld. adjudicating authority, without going into any independent exercise for arriving at the correct taxable value, has solely relied on the calculation done by the respondent, which shows that as a service provider, the respondent has paid more tax than the payable consideration, considering Form 26AS as the source document, and de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S, wherein deductions have been under Section 194C, 194I, 194H and 194J, the respondent has offered explanations and after considering those explanations, the ld. adjudicating authority found that the respondent has paid more tax than that payable by the respondent. Accordingly, it is his submission that the ld. adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand against the respondent vide the impugned order. Therefore, it is prayed by the Ld. Consultant for the respondent that the impugned order be affirmed and the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 14. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 15. Admittedly, in this case, the demand of Service Tax has been raised in the Show Cause Notice, of Rs.15,57,64,877/- against the respondent, on the basis of the difference observed between Form 26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department and the S.T.- 3 Returns filed by the respondent before the Revenue. The respondent explained the said difference through a comparative chart, and after comparison, it was concluded by the ld. adjudicating authority that the respondent has paid Service Tax more than the amount payable by them. For the sake of ready reference, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 848 2014-15 194H 40696 40696 14% 35,698 4,998 2011-12 194J 14083820 14083820 10.30% 1,27,68,649 13,15,171 2012-13 194J 3142654 3142654 12.36% 27,96,951 3,45,703 2013-14 194J 44900295 44900295 12.36% 3,99,61,103 49,39,192 2014-15 194J 13339390 13339390 14% 1,17,01,219 16,38,171 2011-12 194I 397080 397080 10.30% 366723 37,773 2012-13 194I 404496 404496 12.36% 360000 44,496 On the basis of the above table tax due for the impugned period comes as follows: 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 194C 2,11,57,779 2,35,12,069 2,03,61,152 3,79,18,451 194H 0 0 848 4,998 194J 13,15,171 3,45,703 49,39,192 16,38,171 194I 37,773 44,496 0 0 Total 2,25,10,722 2,39,02,268 2,53,01,192 3,95,61,620 15.5. From above it is clear that even if Form 26AS is considered as source data they should have paid S Tax amounting to Rs. (2,25,10,722+ 2,39,02,268 + 2,53,01,192 + 3,95,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s interest receipts from the bank. The total amount shown is Rs.5,41,51,213/- 18. On which also Service Tax has been demanded. In effect, while issuing the Show Cause Notice, mind was not applied to the extent as to whether on interest income, Service Tax is chargeable or not. 19. For the rest of the amount shown in Form 26AS, we find that the same has been explained by the respondent, as per the table reproduced hereinabove. 20. Further, we take note of the fact that this Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (2024) 17 Centax 245 (Tri.-Del) has held as under: - "6. I address the first issue as to whether any demand can be sustained on the basis of the difference between the figures of ST-3 returns and the Trail Balance, I find that it is a settled principle of law that service tax can be levied only when there is clear identification of a 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, I am of the considered opinion that it is no....