Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (3) TMI 350 - AT - Service Tax


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates