TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein] is engaged in providing taxable services and thus is registered with the Service Tax department. During the exercise carried by the department for unearthing of service tax evasion, verification and monitoring of third party data for the financial year 2015-16, as received from the Income Tax Department, it was observed that the value of gross receipt from service as shown by appellant in the Income Tax Return [ITR] for the financial year 2015-16 was Rs. 1,24,91,872/-. However, the gross value of service provided as was shown by the appellant in the ST3 returns filed was Rs. 1,08,11,345/- Hence there was the difference of value of services received of an amount of Rs. 16,80,527/-. Appellant was called upon to explain the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) Vatsal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat-1[2023 (68) GSTL 279 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]; (ii) Shresth Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat-1 [2023 (68) GSTL 143 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]; (iii) Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2022 (58) GSTL 345 (Tr.-All.)]; (iv) Ganpati Mega Builders (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST [2022 (58) GSTL 324 (Tri.-All.)]. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that service tax has been computed while including the value of service tax itself. The differential value arrived at is merely an act of assumption. It is submitted that the difference arose due to accounting treatment and classification of receipt. The difference of value in ITR and ST3 was purely for the reason that certa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reiterated the findings arrived at in the adjudication orders of the department. It is submitted that despite enough opportunities were provided to the appellant to produce the relevant documents as that of contract, invoices etc. to show their claim of exemption and the nature of services provided by them during the period of financial year 2015-16. But they did not provide any such document. The appellant apparently had not assessed the correct amount of service tax and failed to reflect the same properly in ST-3 returns. The non-disclosure of the fact is unearthed by the department at the time of audit. This is sufficient to hold that the appellant had willfully suppressed facts with intent to evade the payment of service tax. Learned D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is also clearly mentioned therein. It was the duty of the department to scrutinize those service tax returns at the appropriate time. The show cause notice proposing the demand of short paid service tax of financial year 2015-16 was proposed on 17.12.2020. Since there is no apparent suppression of facts as observed above, the department is held to have wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. It has been settled position of law that once return is filed, it is the responsibility of the officer to scrutinize the return and its prerogative to call for any documents or other evidence from the assessee and to make the best judgment assumption. This entire exercise has to be completed at the appropriate stage within reasonable time. ....