TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Tax which was paid by the appellant in the normal course and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Against the OIO, the appellant filed his appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant, makes the following submissions. 3. The details of the confirmed demand is as per the following Table : FY Taxable income as per ITR Taxable income as per 26AS Taxable declared in ST-3 Difference [ITR - ST-3] [Col. 2-4] Difference [26AS - ST-3] [Col. 3-4] Higher value of difference [among Col. Service Tax @15% [Including Cess] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2016-17 11422270 9923245 3626640 7795630 6296605 7795630 1169344 4. The demand of Rs.11,69,344 emanates from various services [ though not specified in the SCN] as per the following Table : Work Order No. Work Order Date Nature of Work Amount involved Service tax liability to be borne by Demand GIL/FY16-17/G262/MANPOWER- OPGW 05-04-2016 Manpower Supply 57,83,862.00 Service Recipient ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the confirmed demand of Rs.8,67,579 is required to be set aside on merits. 8. In respect of the second work order, the demand confirmed in respect of the said work order is unsustainable in law as the authorities have failed to extend the benefit of small service provider exemption as available. It is submitted that for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of taxable services for eligibility under the exemption threshold, the value of services on which service tax is payable by the service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism is not liable to be included. The Appellant is thus entitled to exclude such value while determining the exemption limit, and denial of such benefit has resulted in erroneous confirmation of demand, which is liable to be set aside. 9. In respect of the third work order of the table above, the impugned order has grossly erred in confirming demand on the amount received under the aforesaid work order despite the Appellant having duly discharged the applicable service tax liability amounting to Rs. 7,88,907/- along with applicable cess through valid challans. The lower authorities have failed to properly consider and give due credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya Logistics v Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Rajkot [Final Order No. 11700 of 2023 dated 17.08.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 12389 of 2014 (CESTAT, Ahmedabad)] III. M/s. Balajee Machinery v Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Excise, Patna-II [2022 (66) GSTL 440 (Tri.-Kol)] 12. The Ld. A R appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellant did not disclose all the receipts in the ST 3 Returns. Therefore, the Dept. had to conduct detailed verification based on the IT Returns of the appellant and the Form 26 AS details of the appellant. He submits that wherever the appellant has brought in the documentary evidence, the benefit has been extended to him. He justifies the confirmed demand. 13. Heard both the sides and I have perused the documentary evidence brought before me. 14. In respect of the Manpower Supplies, the appellant has submitted the copies of the Work Order issued by Gammon India Ltd and the Invoices raised by the appellant towards the service rendered. Sample copies are extracted below: 15. From the above documentary evidence, it is clear that the service provided is in respect of Manpower Supply Services only. Admittedly, there is no dispute abou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Service Tax records. Such mechanical reliance on Income Tax data, without verification of the nature of receipts or proof of taxable services rendered, is impermissible in law. It is a settled legal position that mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service. 5.1. In support of this view, I rely upon the decision in the case of M/s. Rishu Enterprise vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Excise, Dibrugarh, in Final Order No. 75177 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75509 of 2022 [CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein this Tribunalhas observed as under: - "8. In view of the judicial pronouncement of this Tribunal, we hold that merely on the basis of Form 26-AS issued by the Income Tax Department, the demand of Service Tax is not sustainable against the appellant. ................. 11. In view of this, we hold that the impugned demand is not sustainable against the appellant on the basis of the details provided by the Income Tax Department in Form 26AS and the extended period of limitation is not invokable ." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TRA T/L. Following terms and conditions are agreed by both the parties and therefore reduced down as under: 1. TERMS & CONDITIONS: a) The General Conditions of Contract, annexed as Annexure I, shall be read and form part of the present Work Order / Purchase Order. The terms of the General Conditions of Contract shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present Work Order! Purchase Order unless otherwise specified b) Labour to be deployed as per instruction of our Project Manager/Site In charge/Site Engineer. c) You must maintain good relation with Company's representative and clients representatives. d) Your service tenure shall commence for one month only based on the performance. e) Provide all records, Photo ID, residential proof, police verification report, Photograph of all labour deployed for foundation work. f) )Your Work Order shall be liable for review or terminate with immediate effect for breach of terms and conditions of this WO. g) You shall be responsible for the total protection of man, material and property of the company at the designated area. h) You should submit copy of your registration & PAN card along with signed copy of this work....