AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 as discussed above to 2. I further order for recovery of interest at the appropriate rate for the relevant period till the payment of said confirmed amount of Service Tax from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 as discussed above 3. I further impose a penalty of Rs. 5,16,142/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Fourty Two only) upon them under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017, as discussed above. Further I give an option to the party to pay 25% penalty of amount of confirmed demand of service within a period of 30 days of the date of receipt of this order. Further, the benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only if the amount of such reduced penalty is also paid within 30 days 4. I impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) upon them under Section77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 as discussed above. 5. I impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) upon them under Section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 0 11678350 11717805 11717805 14.5 1699082 2.5 A show-cause notice dated 02.11.2020 invoking the provisions of proviso to section 73(1) of the Act was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:- (i) An amount of Rs.1,17,17,805/- (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakhs Seventeen thousand Eight Hundred and five only)should not be treated as the value of taxable services provided by them during the Financial Years 2015-16, and accordingly Service Tax amounting to Rs. 16,99,082/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh ninety nine Thousand and eighty two Only)not paid /short paid including Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, (ii) Interest at the appropriate rate should not be charged and recovered from the Party in respect of amount of service tax mentioned at S.N. (i) above under Section 75 of the Act' read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017; (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them in respect of amount of service tax mentioned at S.N. (i) above under Section 78 of the 'Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees only) upon M/s. Roop Singh Hukum Singh & Sons, Awadh Nagar, Station Road, Mainpuri under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017, as discussed above 5. I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) upon M/s. Roop Singh Hukum Singh & Sons, Awadh Nagar, Station Road, Mainpuri under Section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017, as discussed above. 6. I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) upon M/s. Roop Singh Hukum Singh & Sons, Awadh Nagar, Station Road, Mainpuri under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. as discussed above. 7. I impose a penalty of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only) upon M/s. Roop Singh Hukum Singh & Sons, Awadh Nagar, Station Road, Mainpuri under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7(C) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017, as discussed above. 2.7 Aggrieved appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 556/ST/ALLD/2022 dated 15.11.2022 allowed the appeal and remanded the matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 85(3A) of the Act, I condone the delay of one month and regularize the appeal to decide it on merit. 5.3 After going carefully through the facts of the case on the basis of documents/records available on the case file, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has decided the case after taking into account all the documents submitted by the appellant. As per the impugned order the appellant has submitted the copy of challans, ST-3 Returns, Form 26AS etc. I note that the Adjudicating Authority has extended full benefit to the appellant on the taxable value reflected in their ST-3 Returns. However, I also note that besides above no other record has been submitted which could substantiate the differential taxable amount given in show cause notice vis-à-vis to impugned order 5.4 I note that it is undisputed that the appellant had provided taxable services for which they were liable to pay service tax on the taxable value. The appellant has sought relief by relying on the notification granting abatement, exemption or payment of service tax under reverse charge. However, I am of the view that no relief can be extended in the absence of documentary evidence. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um Singh & Sons, Awadh Nagar, Station Road, Mainpuri have suppressed the correct value of Taxable Services in respect of Services provided by them by way of not fling the due ST-3 returns/mis-declaring the taxable value in their ST-3 returns for the material period of Show Cause Notice. They suppressed this vital fact from the service had and not the tax to the department paid department. The Noticee deliberately withholding of information or primary facts with the intent to evade the service tax from the department is a clear case of suppression of facts. The Noticee failed to disclose full and true information with the intent to evade the payment of service tax. It is responsibility of assessee to disclose all material facts truly and correct to the department. The facts of provision of the services and actual income/receipts from the service recipients were willfully suppressed from the knowledge of the department with intent toevade payment of service tax, even though they were in full knowledge of the facts. In view of the facts stated above, it appears that by this action of M/s. Roop Singh Hukum Singh & Sons, Awadh Nagar, Station Road, Mainpuri of not disclosing pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Taxable Services in respect of services provided by them by way of not submitting the copies of registration and ST-3 returns for the material period of Show Cause Notice. They suppressed this vital fact from the department and had short paid the service tax to the department. The party deliberately withholding of information or primary facts with the intent to evade the service tax from the department is clear case of suppression of facts. The party failed to disclose full and true information with the intent to evade the payment of service tax. It is responsibility of assessee to disclose all material facts truly and correct to the department. The facts of provision of the services and actual income/receipts from the service recipients were willfully suppressed from the knowledge of the department with intent to evade payment of service tax, even though they were in full knowledge of the facts in the instant case, they failed to discharge their duties and responsibilities as required by them under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994. Therefore, it appears that they had willfully not deposited short payment of service tax. It also appears that they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AS filed under Income Tax and there is no independent investigation or corroboration to support the allegation that they had provided taxable service, demand cannot sustain. Further, it was only in the course of adjudication, as a part of their defence, they claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Therefore, when the charge itself was based solely on the difference between ST-3 and Form - 26 AS, without ascertaining the nature of activities and whether it would amount to service in terms of Section 66B, further proceedings in terms of adjudicating etc., would not sustain and demand has to be dropped on that count itself. He has further submitted that the taxable value has to be determined as per provision of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with rules made under Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and not merely on the basis of figures available in the ITR. Therefore, when neither the activity being chargeable to service tax has been established before the issue of the show cause notice nor it's value has been determined in accordance with the statutory provisions, a demand merely based on the difference between ST-3 and Form - 26 AS is not tenable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir Service Tax returns, in that circumstances, the demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department. Further, the adjudication order has been passed ex parte." B. Gopi Chenna [Hyderabad Bench Final Order No. A/30078-30079/2024 dated 26.02.2024] 8. On going through the records of the case, it is clear that the cases are made on the basis of third party data i.e., amounts reflected in Income Tax Returns and in Form 26AS. Revenue takes the stand that in the Negative List regime, Department is not obliged to prove the provision of a particular service to demand service tax and further, the Appellants could not explain that the difference satisfactorily. I find that this is not the correct approach; exigibility to service tax depends on the service provider, service rendered, service recipient and the consideration thereof. Unless these four elements have been connected logically, demand of service tax cannot be confirmed merely on the basis of figures reflected in other statutory records. Be it pre or post-Negative List regime, the Department is under obligation to prove that the Appellants have rendered such and such service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on merits as well as on limitation no Service Tax can be demanded from the appellant. Per Contra, learned Authorised Representative re-iterated the submissions recorder in the impugned order and prays for dismissal of appeal filed by the appellant. So far as the issue about differences in the figures reflected in ST-3 Returns and in form 26AS is concerned it has been settled by way of various decisions of the Tribunal that the Revenue cannot raise the demand on the basis of merely differences without establishing that the entire amount received by the appellant as reflected in form 26AS is consideration for services provided because it is also not proper to presume that the entire differential amount was on account of consideration for providing services without verifying it. It is the specific case of the appellant that the amount shown in Form 26AS by the service recipient have not been received by the appellant. I also agree with the submission of learned Counsel that the burden to prove the allegations is upon the department that the appellants have received the extra payment on which the TDS of Rs.3,74,121/-(since form 26AS reflects TDS) has been deducted by the service reci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the interest liability and in the written submission herein it has been mentioned by the appellant that the service tax has been deposited by them. Therefore accordingly this issue is decided against the appellant." 9. In view of the above, I find that the Impugned Orders cannot be legally sustained; Accordingly, I set aside the Impugned Orders and allow the Appeals, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. C. Shri Vikas Singh [New Delhi Bench Final Order No. 55776/2024 dated 17.05.2024] "13. The difference in figures reflected in ST-3 returns and Form 26AS filed under Income Tax Act can also not be the basis for raising service tax demand without examining the reasons for such difference and without examining as to whether the amount which is reflected in income tax return was the consideration for providing any taxable services or the difference was due to any exemption or abatement. The demand cannot be confirmed. I draw my support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kush Constructions versus CGST Nacin, ZTI, Kanpur reported as 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 606 (Tri. - All.). The appellant has also shown his eligibility to avail the SSI exempt....