TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant did no pay applicable tax on the unbilled revenue pertaining to the sale of cards and provision of services to the associated and non-associated enterprises and that there was difference in the figures shown in ST-3 Returns and Income Tax Returns. Accordingly, revenue issued the SCN dated 16.10.2012, invoking the extended period of limitation, covering the period 20072008 to 2011-2012, raising the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,39,26,095 along with interest and penalty. A demand of Service Tax of Rs. 2,39,26,095 was confirmed, under proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest and equal penalty under Section 78 and penalties under Sections 75 and 77 of the Act. 3. Ms Krati Singh, Learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the SCN has vaguely proposed the demand on the unbilled revenue recorded in the balance sheet and on the difference between the income recorded under the head "Profits and Gains from Business and Profession" in the income tax returns and ST-3 returns; However, the SCN failed in identifying the type of services which are alleged to be provided by the Appellant and the recipient of such services; It is a settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther amount credited or debited to any account in the books of accounts of the assessee in case of the transaction of taxable service with the associated enterprises. She submits that before the introduction of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, the service tax was charged on the amount received against the taxable service; Section 67 of the Act read with Rule 6 of ST Rules carved out a situation in the case of provision of service to associated enterprise wherein the service tax shall also be levied on the amount credited or debited in the books of accounts irrespective of the realization/receipt of this amount; it is pertinent to note that since these provisions are only applicable on the associated enterprises, therefore, the service tax cannot be levied on the unbilled revenue pertaining to the transactions with the non-associated enterprises. She submits that after the introduction of POT Rules with effect from 1.4.2011, the service tax was levied on accrual basis. Therefore, in any case, the service tax cannot be levied on the unbilled revenue till 1.4.2011 for the non-associated enterprises; unbilled revenue cannot be exigible to service tax as the Appellant has neither raised t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T-3 returns and income tax returns without establishing that such amounts are attributable to the provision of services and identifying the nature of services, service recipient and consideration received against the provision of the services; In absence of such corroborative evidence, the demand confirmed in the above stated manner is liable to be set aside. She relies on M/s PS Construction 2024 (6) TMI 1185 - CESTAT Chandigarh; M/s Mercer Consulting India Pvt Ltd 2024 (4) TMI 328 - CESTAT Chandigarh; M/s. Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association 2023 (9) TMI 815 - CESTAT Chandigarh and M/s Shreejee RMC Pvt Ltd Final Order No. 60233/2024 dated 14.5.2024 (Tri. -Chan.)] 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that SCN dated 16.10.2012 has invoked the extended period of limitation to raise the demand for the Relevant Period; the demand for the period between 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 is barred by limitation; demand raised on basis of difference between ST-3 returns and income tax returns entirely pertains to financial year 2007-2008; the Appellant had recorded the unbilled revenue in respect of the services pertaining to which the invoice was not raised and the revenue d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....billed revenue. * Commissioner of Central Tax Secunderabad - GST v. M/s. Blue Star Ltd., 2024 (5) TMI 619-CESTAT Hyderabad * M/s. Lotte Engineering & Construction (India) (P) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chennai, 2023 (12) TMI 10-CESTAT Chennai 10.3. Onus is on department to establish contrary to contents of CA certificate. * CST v. The Indure P Ltd., 2024 (8) TMI 202 - CESTAT NEW DELHI 10.4. Demand cannot be raised merely based on ST-3 returns, income tax returns and balance sheets. * M/s PS Construction v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula, 2024 (6) TMI 1185 - CESTAT Chandigarh * M/s Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST. Gurugram, 2024 (4) TMI 328 - CESTAT Chandigarh * M/s. Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula, 2023 (9) TMI 815 -CESTAT Chandigarh * M/s Shreejee RMC Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST&CE, Rohtak, 2024 (5) TMI 671 - CESTAT Chandigarh] 10.5. Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. * M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Delhi, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised only for short payment of service under Section 73 and as such the appellants claim that the Show Cause Notice did not identify the service is not acceptable. He submits that a Show Cause Notice can not be invalidated on hyper-technical grounds; the test is whether the notice conveys the basis of demand and enables the noticee to suitably respond; when the short levy is clearly pointed out, mere absence of classification does not render the notice null and void. He relies on ITC Ltd 2014(36) STR 481(del); ITC Ltd 2015(38) STR J362(SC) and Pradumna Steel Ltd 1996(82) ELT 441(SC). 12. Learned Authorized Representative submits that extended period has been rightly invoked. The internal audit was conducted from 17.06.2009 to 22.06.2007 and vide letter 10.07.2009 the notice was informed of the deficiencies; the appellant complied with the departments letter and reminders on 5.10.2012 and the SCN was issued immediately, within 11 days i.e. on 16.10.2012. Revenue had no option but to invoke extended period due to deliberate noncompliance, delaying tactics, selective disclosure and delayed compliance by the appellant. He submits that the contention of the appellant that two show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reminder dated 22.09.2009, 05.11.2009 and 17.11.2009 * Vide letter dated 11.11.2009 (received by department on 18.11.2009), the Appellant explained as to how the demand of service tax on unbilled revenue and difference in Income Tax and ST-3 returns is not tenable and The Appellant also explained the reasons for difference in Income Tax and ST-3 returns; * On 11.07.2012, after almost 2 years 7 months, the department again sought the same information from the Appellant which was requested vide letter dated 10.07.2009; department did not consider the reply filed by the Appellant or point out the deficiencies in the Appellant's reply. * Vide letter dated 23.07.2012, the appellant sought extension of time to submit the documents as the information pertained to a much prior period. * Department sent a Reminder letter dated 17.08.2012 * Vide letter dated 23.08.2012, the Appellant sought extension of time to submit the documents as the information pertained to a much prior period. * Department issued a Reminder letter dated 04.10.2012 * Appellant submitted, vide letter dated 05.10.2012, that the service tax is not payable on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ross receipt as shown in the Income Tax returns was inclusive of recovery of shared personnel cost from SBI, CPSL and that after a prolonged communication, the appellants submitted the details on 09.10.2012 and that on the basis of reconciled figures, the appellants were required to pay duty as indicated. We find that there is no mention of either the service provided by the appellant or the service recipients; it is also not made clear as to how the Revenue came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to pay the service tax demanded. As regards the extended period, the SCN merely says that the assessee had deliberately avoided payment of service tax by suppressing the facts regarding rendering of the above mentioned services and also having recovered the above mentioned consideration with intent to evade due discharge of service tax liability. 17. We find that the SCN does not specify as to what was the service rendered by the appellants and to whom and what was the consideration thereon. We find that learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that the appellants have registered themselves for the services viz. Online Information and Data Services, Busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods, either under Notification No. 12/2003, dated 20th June, 2003 or abatement of 67% of the value, under Notification No. 1/2006, dated 1-3-2006 or under the composition scheme provided in Works Contract Composition Scheme Rules, 2007 should be granted; that a substantial number of the works executed were non-commercial and non-industrial in nature and therefore fall outside the ambit of commercial or industrial construction service, prior to 1-6-2007 as also sub-clause (b) of explanation (ii) of Section 65(105)(zzzza), post 1-6-2007; that the show cause notice was ambiguous and vague since it failed to specify the exact taxable service under which the activity of the appellant falls to be considered as a taxable service; and that in several contracts, works involved segments which were outside the purview of commercial or industrial construction or even works contract service, vide the exclusionary clauses in the definition of these taxable services. Appellant also pleaded before us that Section 98 of the Act with retrospective effect exempted levy and collection of Service Tax in relation to Management, Maintenance and Repair services provided for non-commercial Government buil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner infers that the appellant wilfully suppressed the fact of earning/receiving taxable income and withheld information which led to evasion of Service Tax. In para 31, the impugned order records that though the appellant intentional and wilfully suppressed the taxable value and failed to remit Service Tax, the facts came to light only during the process of audit. Para 31 abruptly jumps to the conclusion, without any preceding analysis nor a finding as to the specific taxable services provided by the appellant, that Service Tax of Rs. 1,53,14,782/- is recoverable under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act along with interest, excluding penalty under Section 76. Para 32 records the operative portion of the order declaring the specified liability to Service Tax, interest and penalties. 10. It is a axiomatic that a best judgment assessment under Section 72 could only be for ascertaining the quantum of the tax liability, in a context where the actual extent of liability cannot be determined with mathematical precision on account of non-availability of relevant documents or financial records. There cannot be a best judgment assessment regarding the specific taxable service p....