TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order following has been held:- "ORDER 1. I hereby confirm the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.2,30,92,994/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Lakh Ninety-two Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four Only) proposed under SCN, under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and order its recovery from the party. 2. I order charging and recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the above-mentioned confirmed amount of service tax. 3. I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 2,30,92,994/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Lakh Ninety-two Thousand Nine Hund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t against the above amounts so received as per their 26AS, appellant has not discharge service tax liability. Appellant vide letter dated 16.10.2021 asked to clarify and submit their ITRs, 26AS, Balance Sheet, Reconciliation statement along with supporting documents for FY. 2016-17 and onwards. However, appellant did not responded and no documents were submitted. Accordingly, service tax due from the appellant was calculated as per table below:- Period Differential Value of Taxable Services was not accounted for in the ST-3 returns Total Applicable rate of service tax (include. Cesses) Total Differential amount of Service Tax payable (Value in Rupees) 2016- 17 15,39,53,290 -- 2,30,92,994/- 2.4 Show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Santosh Kumar learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- In the same matter for the same period, show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the same were dropped by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No.38/Pr.Commr./ST/NOIDA/21-22 dated 28.01.2022 and Order-in-Original No.03/Comm/ST/GZB/22-23 dated 27.05.2022. However, it is third show cause notice on the same ground which has been confirmed with penalties. The reason adherent, such approach is not disenable, as the same Commissioner has concluded the proceedings earlier and this Order-in-Original again is non-est and needs to be set aside. 3.3 Learned Authorized Representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice and did not respond to subsequent letters to appear for personal hearings either. Therefore, I hold that the party has nothing in their favour to submit to the Department against the show cause notice No. 27/Comm/ ST/GZB/2021 dated 22.10.2021 as they never turned up to appear in person or submit any valid sustainable defense in their favour despite been granted ample opportunities of personal hearing by the Department. In these circumstances, there is no other option left but to decide the case ex-parte on the basis of available facts and records as discussed herein above. 6.5 I observe that as per data provided by the Income Tax department the party has not declared their service tax liability correctly during the finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....volved (Rs.) 2015-16 14.50% 174986608 2,53,73,058 2016-17 15% 153953290 2,30,92,994 Total 4,84,66,052/- The Adjudicating Authority has passed the following order:- "ORDER I drop the proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice No. 386/Pr. Comm./ST/Div-IV/NOIDA/2021 dated 27-042021 issued vide C.No. 20-CGST/TPI-15-16 &1617/VISHAL /R-20/Div-IV/N/220/2021/1714 dated 27.04.2021 against M/s VISHAL ASSOCIATES, D-37, SEC- 56, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh-201301." 4.4 We find that by Order-in-Original dated 27.05.2022 again the proceedings were initiated in respect of the same assessee having STC No.AIEPB0927DST002 with PAN No.AIEPB0927D and the demand was dropped by the Commissioner by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR/26As vis-à-vis Service Tax return. The value of difference observed during 2016-17 is the same as the instant demand mentioned above. 6.5 As the party had already surrendered the registration and was not falling under the jurisdiction of this Commissionerate during the relevant period of 2016-17 and this period stands covered in the order dated 28.01.2022 of the Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Noida, I find that the demand is liable to be dropped and no further action is required at this end. 6.6 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion & findings mentioned supra, I pass the following order: ORDER I drop the proceedings initiated against M/s Vishal Associates, ....