TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis of ITR data provided by the Income Tax Department, it was noticed that the appellant has received gross amount of Rs.1,31,74,925/-during period Oct 2014 to June 2017 whereas they have shown total taxable value amounting to Rs.20,36,069/- in their ST-3 returns. The details of the figures provided by the Income Tax and as per ST-3 return are reproduced in table below:- Services 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total As per ST-3 Insurance Auxiliary, General Insurance Maintenance and Repair 574981 1010021 451067 0 2036069 As per ITR Commission, Labour charges, Discount 3790139 4231972 2669819 2182995 12874925 Difference 3215158 3221951 2518752 2182995 11138856 2.3 Appellant on the receipt of the above information was asked to furnish the requisite information and reconcile the difference in the figures as per ITR and ST-3 vide letter dated 03.05.2019, 09.09.09.2019 and 28.08.2020. Appellant did not provide the information as called for. 2.4 The service tax short paid on the value of services provided as per ITR and ST-3 is calculated as in table below: Financial Year Difference Gross Receipts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with an intent to evade the payment of duty. (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 For non-payment of the Service Tax. (iv) Late fee amounting to Rs. 63000/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand Only) should not be imposed under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules. 1994. (v) Penalty of Rs. 20000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) should not be imposed under the provisions of Section 77 (2) of the Act for not fifing ST-3 returns for the period April' 16 to June 17 in contravention Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994." 2.8 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original No 44/ST/AC/FZD/2021-22 dated 30.12.2021 holding as follows:- "ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of Rs. 15,69,838/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) including Cesses, as service tax short paid by Shri Vivek Tripathi, Proprietor of M/s Sakes Auto Traders.25 Shiv Nagar Turkahiya, Gandhi Nagar, Basti 272001 (U.P.), and order for recovery of the same under the provisions of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 read with Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows:- "4.1 The appellant has contested that the submission made by them before the adjudicating authority on 15.07.2021 through email in compliance of personal hearing was not considered while passing the impugned order; therefore, principle of natural justice has not been followed in this case. I observe that the adjudicating authority has given opportunity of personal hearing on 14.06.2021, 24.06.2021, 05.07.2021, 01.12.2021, 15.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 but appellant has not attended any personal hearing. The appellant has also not submitted any reason for not attending personal hearing on the aforementioned date. At the appellate stage the appellant has failed to produce any acknowledgment that submission made by the appellant was actually received by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. Thus, I find no force in the contention of the appellant that the adjudicating authority has not followed principle of natural justice. 4.2 The appellant has contested that the adjudicating authority has not extended benefit of abatement and partial reverse charge on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., I am of the considered view that the appellant is liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 15,69,838/- along with interest. 4.5 It is observed that under the self-assessment procedure specified in the statute, appellant was required to assess & pay their Service Tax liability correctly, on their own. In the instant case the appellant has not shown correct taxable value in their ST-3 returns and short payment of Service Tax could be detected only during the course of enquiry conducted by the Department. Thus, it is a clear case of suppression of facts and contravention of the statutory provisions, with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Thus, penalty of Rs. 15,69,838/ imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 78 of the Act is justified. 4.6 The appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, therefore, liable for penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Act. The appellant has also failed to file ST-3 return for the period Oct 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017, therefore, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed under Section 77 (2) of the Act is justified. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed to him. Commissioner (Appeal) has disallowed the said claim stating that no documents to this effect have been produced by the appellant. 4.5 I also observe that the Show Cause Notice specifically mentions following as Relied Upon Documents: 1. Information provided by the Hdqrs. Office regarding Income Tax 26 AS (RUD-1). 2. ST-3 Returns (RUD-1A). 3. Letter C No 48/TPI/Inq/VT/R-Basti/2019/387 dated 03.05.2019 (RUD -2). 4. Reminder Letter C No 48/TPI/Inq/VT/R-Basti/2019/424 dated 04.06.2019, 494 dated 09.09.2019 and 87 dated 28.08.2020 was also sent to the party (RUD-3). 5. The Copy of ITR for the Assessment year 2015-16, 201617 and 2017-18 (RUD-4). To ascertain about the services provided by the appellant on which the demand has been made in the present case, I had called for the copy of show cause notice along with the relied upon documents. From the description of RUD-1 it appears that information received in respect of 26AS from income tax authorities through head quarter office was the basis for determining the service tax payable. Scanned RUD 1 which has been provided along with show cause notice is as follows: The att....