TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,774/- along with interest and imposed appropriate penalties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Ativeer Jain Proprietor of M/s Prompt Publicity E-15, Ballabhbari, Kota-324007, registered under Service Tax vide Registration No. AMGPJ3711RSD001 was providing taxable services as 'Advertising Agency Services'. During the course of verification of third party data received from Income Tax department, certain details i.e. type of service provided, copies of Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss account, 26AS, ITR, ST-3 returns filed etc. were called from the appellant for Financial Year 2016-17. On perusal of documents submitted by the appellant, it was noted that the appellant was engaged in providing 'Advertising Agency Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest and penalties. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn, rejected their appeal. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The case was out but no one appeared. A perusal of the file revealed that the appellant was provided several opportunities, but the learned counsel sought adjournments. Eighteen adjournments were sought from February 2024 onwards. Thereafter on 11.05.2026, last opportunity was granted and the case was listed for 02.06.2026. On 02.06.2026, learned counsel once again sought adjournment. Learned Single Member accepted the request and adjourned the case to 17.07.2026 as last opportunity. On 17.07.2026, one again adjournment was sought and the matter was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ril 2016 to March 2017, copy of sample invoices and sample Work Orders. The appellant did not suppress any facts from the Department as there is no gap/mismatch of figures in the ITR filed with Income Tax Department as well as Balance Sheet of the appellant. It is submitted that the extended period of limitation cannot be applied in this case on the basis of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Punjab Laminates (P) Limited [[2006] 5 STT 432 (SC)] 4.1 Further, it is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in not extending benefiit of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 59,997/-. The appellant submitted that during the period October 2016 to March 2017, the gross receipts was Rs. 17,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant had declared the income u/s 44AD of Income Tax Act, 1961 on presumption basis and filed ITR for that period u/s 44AD. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submitted that the appellant had accepted in the grounds of appeal, that the due to clerical error the figures were wrongly mentioned in their ST-3 returns. Further, they had accepted that due to oversight, the figures for their other firm M/s VCare Solutions were not reported in their ST-3 returns. The claim of figures being not reported due to error or oversight does not appear proper since they have reported correct figures in their Income Tax returns. To deal with this lacuna in their contention, they have stated that ITR is filed u/s 44AD of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m M/s Vcare Solutions which was unregistered. All these acts of suppression was with an intent to evade tax. The appellant claimed ineligible benefit of threshold exemption which after the SCN was accepted to have been claimed due to mistake/oversight. Therefore, extended period has been correctly invoked and penalty is imposable on the appellants. The appellants have cited case laws where it has been held that penalty is not imposable in case of dispute of interpretation of notification. But they have failed to point out which notification is disputed and on which point. It may be noted that their claim of threshold exemption was not right, as accepted by themselves. 6. I have gone through the ground of appeal, learned AR's submissions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent case and has relied on judgement of Supreme Court. In the instant case, I note that the appellant has accepted that the taxable value was not correctly reflected in the ST-3 returns. I also note that the 2nd firm of the appellant was not registered. It is an admitted fact that the taxable value was shown lesser than actual in ST-3 returns filed by the appellant which clearly established their intent to evade service tax. Hence, the extended period has been correctly invoked in the instance case. 7.2 The appellant has sought for cum-tax benefit on the receipt of Rs. 8,34,550/-. In this regard, I find that the impugned order has noted that the appellant has submitted some of the sample copies of the bill raised from their service rec....