TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntelligence (Hqrs.) [now renamed as Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (Hqrs)], New Delhi (in short, DGCEI and DGGSTI, respectively) that although the assessee were registered with service tax department, they had not paid due service tax on the services provided by them. It was also gathered that they had collected service tax from their clients but had not deposited the same to the government exchequer. Therefore, an investigation was initiated against them. 1.2 During the course of investigations, statements of both partners of the assessee named Shri Sandeep Chaudhary and Shri R.M. Dabas were recorded wherein they admitted the fact of collection of service tax and the fact of short non-payment of service tax to the government exchequer. They also submitted relevant information and records through letters. On scrutiny of the same, it emerged that M/s Supershine- appellants had charged and collected service tax at the rate of 12.36% on the 25% of the gross amount from their recipients/clients but they failed to remit the same to the Exchequer. 1.3 Inquiry was conducted with their statutory auditor Shri Atul Jindal, Chartered Accountant who informed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng period of financial year 2014-15, the total correct tax liability was Rs.52,21,857/-, whereas the assessee had actually deposited Rs.52,85,496/-. Thus, there is an excess payment of Rs.63,639/- available with the department. This reconciliation was not found to be correct, nor was it properly dealt with in the impugned order. In these circumstances, confirming any further demand amounts to seeking recovery of tax that has already been discharged and reported in statutory returns. Once the entire turnover has been declared and tax has been paid thereon, the same value cannot again be subjected to tax without first excluding the payments already made. The demand sustained in the impugned order therefore results in duplication and is liable to be set aside in entirely. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax Appeal No. 85614 of 2025]. 3.2 It is further submitted that the rejection of the assessee's classification of services as 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' is legally unsustainable. The entire reasoning of the department and the lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed even if the assessees claim no mens rea. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Gujarat Travancore Agency Cochin reported as 1989 (42) ELT 350 (SC) laid down the law stating- "4. ............ It is sufficient for us to refer to Section 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may be imposed if the Income Tax Officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income, and to Section 276C which provides that if a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of income required under Section 139(1), he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine. It is clear that in the former case what it intended is a civil obligation while in the latter what is imposed is a criminal sentence. There can be no dispute that having regard to the provisions of Section 276C, which speaks of wilful failure on the part of the defaulter and taking into consideration the nature of the penalty, which is punitive, no sentence can be imposed under that provision unless the element of mens rea is established. In most cases of criminal liability, the intention of the Legislature is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on recorded by them is admissible as substantive evidence. Such statements are neither hit by the exclusionary rules of the Evidence Act nor do they violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3). As the Apex Court clarified in Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 940], at the stage of a Section 108 inquiry, the deponent is not an "accused" in the technical sense, rendering the shield of Article 20(3) unavailable. 5.4 The core controversy here lies in the evidentiary weight attached to a retracted statement. For a retraction to be legally potent, it must be contemporaneous. We are guided by the ratio in K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin [1997 (3) SCC 721], wherein the Supreme Court held: "It is the duty of the court to look into the facts and circumstances of each case to find whether the confession was voluntary... If the court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary and true, it can form the basis of conviction." 5.5 As was also held in Ciabro Alemao Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Goa reported as 2018 (362) ELT 465 (Bom.) and reaffirmed by this Court in Aj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this respect ever before this Tribunal. Hence we uphold the order of remand requiring quantification of the service tax liability with respect to housekeeping services. 5.7 Coming to the plea of invocation of extended period of limitation, as already observed above that appellant had willfully suppressed the relevant fact to evade payment of tax. We hold that extended period is rightly invoked. We draw our support from Consmic Dye Chemical Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported as 1995 (75) ELT 721 a three Judges Bench of this Court observed as follows: "5. The main limb of Section 11-A provides limitation of six months. In cases, where the duty is not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, it can be recovered by the appropriate officer within six months from the relevant date. (The expression "relevant date" is defined in the section itself.) But the said period of six months gets extended to five years where such non-levy, short levy, etc., is "by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules with intent to evade payment of duty.... ....