TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment vide Service Tax Registration No.AAQPA4315ESD001 in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 Based on the third party data received from the Income Tax Department, it was observed that for the Financial Year 2015-16 the appellant has declared a gross taxable value of services provided by them as Rs.16,73,359/- in their periodical ST-3 Returns for the corresponding period, whereas as per the Income Tax Returns of appellant Gross receipts on Sale of Services was declared as Rs.30,99,659/-. Thus, it was noticed that there was difference in the gross value declared in their ST3 Returns, and resulted in short payment of service tax as computed below: Financial Year Gross Receipts Higher of 2-3 and 3-4 Service Tax Payable Rs ITR 26AS ST3 1 2 3 4 5 6 2015-16 3099659 3014135 16773359 1426300 206814 2.3 Enquiries/ investigations were made from the appellant and letter dated 26.11.2020 and 21.12.2020 were issued to them asking them to provide relevant details along with the reconciliation of differences. However no response was received. 2.4 Accordingly, show cause notice dated 26.03.2021 was issued to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only upon the said party under the provisions of Section 77(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act 2017. 2.6 Aggrieved appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. 2.7 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 On the last date of hearing Counsel for the appellant has filed a written synopsis dated 17.04.2026 and the matter was adjourned for hearing on 28.04.2026. However, appellant filed a letter seeking adjournment vide email dated 27.04.2026. 3.2 As I find that the matter is in very narrow compass and can be decided in absence of the appellant counsel, I have taken the matter for consideration after hearing Shri Prashant Kumar learned Authorized Representative for the revenue, who reiterated the grounds recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows:- "12.3 I find that the appellant has not declared all the actual gross receipts in his ST-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s amply clear that the dues are liable to be recovered in terms of the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is liable to pay interest, at prescribed rate, on the due amount of service tax. 15. Having concluded so, I find that since in the present case, service tax has been evaded by the appellant by way of suppression, mis-statement and with the willful intent to evade payment of service tax, penalty as imposed upon them, by the adjudicating authority under Section 70, 77(1) and Section 78 of the Act is justifiable and I find no reason to interfere in this regard. I also find that extended period clause under Section 73(1) and (or) penalty under Section 78 is leviable when it is proved beyond doubt that the service tax in question has been evaded intentionally by way of suppression, mis-statement and contravention of various provisions of law of the land." 4.3 Appellant has claimed the benefit of threshold exemption. In the present case for claiming service tax liability appellant has provided receipts of total turnover during the previous year which was less than Rs.10 lakhs. 4.4 From the ITR return of the appellant for the year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Taxable Value only after grant of Service Tax Registration, which caused such anomaly." From the above it is quite evident that appellant do not dispute that during the financial year 2015-16 they have short paid the service tax to the tune of Rs 61,814/-. The reason attributed for short payment of tax is the delay in issuance of Service Tax registration. I do not find any merit in the said submission. The appellant was well aware of the fact that he would crossing the threshold limit and should have taken necessary steps for registering with the department in advance. Further the person availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No 33/2012ST is required to seek registration after crossing the turnover of Rs 9,00,000/- in respect of the taxable services provided. Once the application seeking registration is made in Form ST-1 is made then the Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 itself provides for deemed registration if registration is not granted by the jurisdictional superintendent within seven days. Further it is also to be noted that the return is filed on six monthly basis on 25th October and 25th April. Thus the gross value of service provided by the appell....