Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 350 - AT - Service TaxSCN issued solely on the basis of 26 AS statement - noticee failed to provide complete information about their tax liability on certain services rendered - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The contention of the department that they came to know of the appellant s activities only through the 26 AS statement is nothing more than plainly frivolous, as the appellant had been regularly submitting the ST-3 returns and paying tax as leviable on the manpower service rendered. There is nothing to show from the records that the appellant was not properly maintaining the books of account or had not recorded the various transactions. The department has nothing to substantiate its case, except for some bland statements that are essentially presumptive in nature. Moreover, 26 AS is not a prescribed statement/document for purpose of determination of service tax liability. It was for the department to lead its case with cogent evidence. The said 26 AS statement is maintained in respect of various receipts as applicable for the Income Tax Department for purpose of tax deducted TDS as relevant under the Income Tax Act. Service Tax would have to essentially depend on the value of the taxable service rendered and is unlike the taxability under the IT laws. The issuance of the show cause notice solely on the basis of the figures indicated in 26 AS cannot be sustained. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant was entitled to the exemption under N/N. 15/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012 and in view of the department not being specifically able to point out any of the essential ingredients for invocation of the larger period of limitation, the same is not applicable in the present case. The order of the learned appellate authority cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The impugned order of the lower authority is, therefore, set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the demand for payment of service tax on "manpower supply services" for the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17, along with penalties imposed under sections 78 and 77(2) of the Finance Act. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Demand for Payment of Service Tax The appellant contested the demand made by the department based on figures from the 26 AS statement, asserting that they provided complete information about their tax liability and availed the benefit of an exemption notification. They argued that the demand invoking the extended period of limitation was not maintainable, citing relevant legal precedents. The department contended that the appellant failed to correctly show the duty liability as per the 26 AS statement. Issue 2: Allegation of Rendering Other Services The appellant, engaged in supplying "manpower services" to a specific company, refuted the department's claim of rendering other services during the disputed period. They highlighted a certificate from the company confirming the nature of services provided. The appellant argued that the department wrongly calculated figures from the 26 AS form without considering applicable exemptions. Issue 3: Use of 26 AS Statement for Determination of Tax Liability The appellant challenged the department's reliance solely on the 26 AS statement for determining tax liability, emphasizing that it is not a prescribed document for service tax determination. They asserted that the department lacked substantial evidence to support its case and criticized the issuance of the show cause notice based solely on the figures in the 26 AS statement. Decision: The tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting that the department's contentions lacked substantiation and failed to establish the essential ingredients for invoking the larger period of limitation. Citing a previous tribunal decision, the judgment emphasized the need for thorough examination before raising demands based on differences between ST-3 returns and 26 AS statements. Consequently, the order of the lower authority was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.
|