2026 (4) TMI 1273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness Auxiliary Services" (BAS) by the CERA Audit party, it was noticed that the said appellant had declared less value of taxable service in their periodical ST-3 returns filed with the department as compared with the value declared in their profit & loss account filed with the Income Tax Department for the year 2004-05 and have short paid the Service Tax. 1.2 A SCN was issued on 07.08.2009 which was adjudicated vide OIO No. 42/STC-AHD/ADC(AS)/2012-13 dtd. 30.01.2013 and service tax of Rs. 7,90,159/- was confirmed alongwith penalty u/s 76 & penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.3 The adjudicating authority had observed that the appellant has not disputed the taxability of Commission Income but their main contention was regarding ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....services provided by the commission agents prior to 09.07.2004 were not taxable. In the instant case, the appellant who are not the commission agents for agriculture produce, were liable to pay service tax w. e. f. 09.07.2004. Therefore, the contention of the said assessee that their income earned on account of commission agent prior to 10.09.2004 was not taxable is found to be incorrect. The commission agents, except those engaged in sale & purchase of agriculture produce, were taxable with effect from 09.07.2004. 1.6 The said OIO was adjudicated vide OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-017-14-15 dtd. 22.04.2014. 1.7 Commr(A) observed that the adjudicating authority came to a conclusion that the appellant has shown less Income in their service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be addressed suitably before arriving at a taxable value for determining service tax liability. For this limited purpose, the case was remanded back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to re-quantify the taxable value taking into consideration the transactions involved with Ashima. 1.9 Being aggrieved by the Commr(A)'s order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants specifically for the period of 09.07.2004 to 10.09.2004 covered in the SCN dated 07.08.2009. 2. The main ground pressed by the appellant at the time of hearing, along with the various case laws relied upon, are as under:- • The demand is confirmed without considering settled law on invoking extended period. The lower authority has clear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide belief cannot be pleaded by a person who chooses not to read the law or interprets it in a manner convenient to them, particularly when there is no scope for ambiguity or interpretation for any reasonable person. He also pointed out that the practice of awaiting receipt of payment before discharging tax liability further indicates an intention to evade tax in cases where the consideration is not received from clients. Accordingly, he submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no scope for invoking the plea of bona fide belief. The extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked and the impugned order deserves to be upheld. 4. This Court has considered the r....