2026 (4) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Building, Custom House, 15/1 Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001 has upheld the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.10,730/- (inclusive of cess), along with interest and penalties. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has been registered with the Department and filing 'Nil' Returns. On the basis of data received from the Income Tax Department and pursuant to comparison of the same with the ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant during the period 2014-15 (Oct-March), it was observed by the officers of the Department that the total income of the appellant during the said period was Rs.86,818/- on which the appellant had not paid Service Tax. 3. On the basis of the above, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 24.12.2020 demanding Servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erein; that the demand has been raised in a mechanical and routine manner on the basis of the difference found between the CBDT Data and the ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant. He states that there is a catena of decisions in this regard wherein it has been categorically held that a demand cannot be raised solely on the basis of comparison of Income Tax Returns and ST-3 Returns, without any independent verification being conducted therefor. In view of the above submissions, it is his stand that the Revenue has no case for invoking the extended period of limitation in the present case and therefore, contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence observed in the Income Tax Returns and ST-3 Returns of the appellant, cannot be legally sustained as held by this Tribunal in a catena of decisions. I also do not find that any substantive piece of evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that the appellant has indulged in any activity amounting to suppression or wilful mis-statement. I find it relevant to refer to the decision in the case of M/s. Nanu Shome & Co. v Commissioner of C.G.S.T & C.Ex., Siliguri [Final Order No. 75084 of 2026 dated 20.01.2026 in Service Tax Appeal No. 76615 of 2025 - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it has been categorically held that the difference between the Income Tax Returns and ST-3 Returns cannot be the sole basis for raising the demand;....