TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis of third party data received from the Income Tax Department for the year 2014-2015, it was observed by the Department that there was receipt from the services as per income tax returns but no ST-3 returns filed by the appellant during the said period; accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,01,705/- and penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act were also proposed to be imposed. The adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 18.12.2023 confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 3,26,785/- along with interest under Section 73 and Section 75 of the Act; penalties of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 3,26,785/- was also imposed under Section 77 and 78 respectively ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6AS without collaborative evidence. Learned counsel also submits that in the present case, the Revenue has invoked the extended period of limitation. The period involved in the present case is 2016-17, whereas, the show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2021 under Section 72 (best judgments). The learned counsel further submits that the Department has failed to establish any of the ingredients which are required for invoking the extended period of limitation. He further submits that this issue was also considered by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s New Prakash Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rohtak vide Final Order No. 60484/2024 dated 22.08.2024, wherein it has been held that since the appellant pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgments: * Rajesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Chennai North, 2023-TIOL-911-HC-MAD-ST. * M/s SR Consultancy Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy - GST, Hyderabad, Telangana2025-TIOL-1468-CESTAT-HYD. * M/s Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax,. (LTU), Mumbai) - 2024 (21) Centax 274 (Tri.-Bom) * M/s Well Erectors of New Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, & Service Tax, Calicut 2024 (22) Centax 169 (Tri.-Bang). 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the Circular issued by the Department from time to time as well as the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 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. 8. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of CE & CGST, Lucknow vide Final Order No. 70088/2025 decided on 25.02.2025 and has held in para 5 which is reproduced here in below: 5. On perusal of the above stated findings of this Tribunal in various cases, we note that the issue is no more res integra and It has been decided that only on the basis of data in Form 26AS, Revenue cannot issue show cause notice demanding service tax. Here we note that charging Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 provides for levy of service ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices are exempted from levy of service tax. From any data, unless scrutiny in respect of all the above stated aspects is not done, then such data cannot be taken as such as value for calculation of service tax. Precisely this exercise has not been carried out in the present order-in-original. 8.2 Therefore, by following the ratio of the decisions cited (supra) wherein, it has been consistently held that demand cannot be raised on the basis of the difference between ST-3 and 26AS/ITR returns, hence, on this issue alone, we set aside the demand. 7. Further, In the case of M/s New Prakash Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rohtak , this Bench of the Tribunal has dealt with the invocation of extended peri....