TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng in difference in value amounting to Rs. 56,09,850/-. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 7th October, 2024 was issued to the appellant, whereby, Service Tax of Rs. 8,41,478/- was demanded on the differential value of Rs. 56,09,850/-. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority, Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Nadiad-Vadodara. He confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 8,41,478/- along with interest and ordered to recover the same by way of Order-in-Original dated 26th February, 2024. He also imposed penalty of Rs, 8,41,478/- on the assesse. 1.3 Feeling aggrieved with the Order-in-Original, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 5th December, 2024, the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 2. The learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that during the period from 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017, the appellant has provided service of the value of Rs. 56,09,850/- as per P & L account and paid Service Tax of Rs. 8,41,478/- after receipt of the payment of tax in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Show Cause Notice can be issued within five years from the relevant date in case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax and 30 months from the relevant date in other cases. As the date of filing of return is 15th October, 2016, therefore, the Show Cause Notice issued on 7th October, 2021 is well within the time limit of five years. Further, appellant have not filed the returns. It is well settled principle that when there was no registration and no returns were filed, the same tantamount to suppression of facts from the department with intent to evade the payment of Service Tax. Had the inquiry not initiated, the facts could have never come to the knowledge of the department. 3.2 The learned AR submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner has been passed in accordance with law and applying law laid down by the Tribunal and by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Gujarat High Court, therefore, the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discussion, it is clear that an individual and partnership firm (in form of an association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not) are treated as separate entities. So, legal compliance of a person could not be fulfilled through-another. Thus, the contention of the noticee that service tax compliance of the partnership firm with ST no. ABFFS0608ESD001 is fulfilled through one of partner's Service tax no. ABMPA5721FST001 is not tenable." 4.3 From the above observations made by the learned Adjudicating Authority it becomes clear that the appellant has erroneously paid all the service tax liability of the partnership firm through his proprietorship firm with S.T. Registration No. ABMPA5721FST001 instead of the partnership firm's Service Tax No. ABFFS0608ESD001. The demand was confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority on the ground that individual and partnership firm are treated as separate entities. Therefore, legal compliance of one person could not be fulfilled through another. The learned Adjudicating Authority concluded that the contention of the noticee that service tax compliance of the partnership firm with ST no. ABFFS0608ESD001 is fulfill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Number) as well as address of this petitioner in G.A.R.-7 form, which is at Annexure 3 series to this petition. Error is also apparent on the face of the record looking to the accounting code given to this petitioner which is correctly mentioned in G.A.R.-7 form. This error has been committed by the Accountant of this petitioner who is common for this petitioner as well as for respondent No. 3. The name of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 is same. This being purely a clerical error, we, hereby, direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to treat Form G.A.R.7 which is at Annexure 3 series as of this petition having Service Code Number as ALBPS4133JST001. Service Code mentioned in G.A.R.-7 Form is wrongly mentioned and instead of the same, the aforesaid service code shall be inserted. Similarly, there is an error committed by this petitioner in narrating the address of this petitioner in G.A.R.-7 Form which is at Annexure 3 series. The same will be now inserted as "H. No. 21, Baleshwar Singh Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum) Jharkhand 831012'. This address will be the address in in G.A.R.-7 Form which is at Annexure 3 series. This Annexure 3 series will be tre....