2026 (7) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act, 1994, has been imposed on the appellant and also a penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed on the appellant for violation of Section 70 of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is a proprietorship concern engaged in the execution of composite works contracts - principally construction, repair and maintenance of roads and bridges - for the State Government, PWD divisions and allied governmental authorities in Assam, besides incidental trading (supply of goods). Solely on the basis of a mismatch between the receipts reflected in the Income Tax Return/Form 26AS and the value declared in the ST-3 returns for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 (up to June 2017), the Department assumed taxable services of Rs.21,94,87,644/- and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing decisions : (i) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) - mere non-payment of duty is not equivalent to collusion / wilful mis-statement/suppression; the burden lies on Revenue and these ingredients postulate a positive act. (ii) Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC) - mis-statement or suppression must be willful, i.e. with intent to evade duty. (iii) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. CCE, Bombay, 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) - extended period is not attracted by every omission; where facts are known to both parties, omission does not constitute suppression. (iv) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC) - "suppression ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (service tax being treated as included in the gross consideration where no tax was separately collected). The figure of Rs.21,94,87,644/- itself is arithmetically erroneous, being a wrong aggregation of the FY 2017-18 Form 26AS. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing their appeal. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue has justified the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that in this case, the demand has been raised against the appellant on the basis of differential figures as reflected in Form 26AS obtained from Income Tax Department and the value of the taxable services provided by the appellant in their ST-3 Returns in the imp....