TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e help of the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 2. I find that the Appellant has enclosed GAR-7 Challan dated 19.08.2015 towards payment of Rs.2,21,919/-, Challan dated 25.08.2015 for Rs.2,01,901/- and Challan dated 12.06.2016 for Rs.2,54,442/-. If these three challans are considered, the pre-deposit required towards the litigated amount of Rs.21,90,117/- stands clearly fulfilled. I find that the Commissioner(Appeals) has refused to consider these challans towards pre-deposit. I also find that these amounts pertain to the year 2015-16, the period for which the Show Cause Notice was issued. I also observe that the Appellant has not appeared before the Adjudicating authority and the Order-in-Original was passed ex parte. Had t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erely based on Form 26AS of Income Tax Returns will not allow the demand to be legally sustained. For reference the following case law Tabassum Enterprises vs. C, CGST & CX vide Final Order No.75452/2025 dated 19.09.2025 (Service Tax Appeal No.75037 of 2025) has held as under :- "5. I find that the present demand has been raised and confirmed on the basis of data provided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). It is observed that the said demand has been confirmed without the support of any independent or corroborative evidence from 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of tax deducted at source, etc. being the relevant data for Income Tax. Whereas under the Service Tax provisions, the service tax is chargeable on mercantile basis (accrual basis) on the service provided whether the value of such service is received or not. Thus, we find that the whole basis of show cause notice is incorrect and/or misconceived." 5.6. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, I hold that the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order, solely relying the data received from CBDT, without adducing corroborative evidence in support, cannot be sustained. Thus, I observe that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground itself." 9. It would also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions dated 01.04.2021 and 23.04.2021 issued vide F.No.137/472020-ST, has directed the field formations that while analysing ITR-TDS data received from Income Tax, a reconciliation statement has to be sought from the taxpayer for the difference and whether the service income earned by them for the corresponding period is attributable to any of the negative list services specified in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 or exempt from payment of Service Tax, due to any reason. It was further reiterated that demand notices may not be issued indiscriminately based on the difference between the ITR-TDS taxable value and the taxable value in Service Tax Returns. 3. It is once again reiterated that instructions of the Board to issue show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is issued without jurisdiction and consequently the order-in-original also would not survive.... '8. In view of our findings supra and the decisions aforesaid, the lack of allegation in the show cause notice, that any, or even part, of the impugned income was not attributable to any of the claimed activities, places the invoking of section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 in jeopardy at the threshold itself. It would appear that the adjudicating authority was influenced almost entirely by the additional income reported in returns prescribed in another jurisdiction. 9. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." 10. Relying on the above case laws, I hold that even on account of time bar, the con....