TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries of transfer of those very amounts to the ‘bad debt’ ledger. The second unresolved aspect of the dispute is manifested in the demand of ₹ 2,66,604 allegedly short-paid as revealed from the remittance of service tax of ₹ 15,76,659 as ascertained from the returns for the period from 2002-03 to 2004-05 and the alleged liability of ₹ 18,43,263 ascertained by tax authorities from the ‘trial balance.’ Neither in the show cause notice nor in the proceedings before the lower authorities do we find any reference to the entry, or entries, in ‘trial balance’ from which the higher amount had been derived. We are not certain if the said amount has been shown as such in the ‘trial balance’ or if it has been computed by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We see no reason to perpetuate this in the absence of some worthwhile reason to believe that a consummation that would stand the test of appeal exists. We set aside the demands and the attendant detriments but remand the matter back to the original authority for a second time to enable the ascertainment of validity of the contention of the appellant on the discharge of tax liability. - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL NO: ST/85611/2015 - A/87822/2018 - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Shri Makrand Joshi, Advocate for appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew M/s Saransh Ads is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itigation before the Tribunal. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated his earlier submission of being in possession of relevant records that had been submitted to the lower authorities but which was, steadfastly, ignored in the findings of the lower authorities. We perceive the same rigid obduracy on the part of both Revenue and the appellant in the proceedings before us but are unable to fathom the reasons. It would surely be in the interests of the appellant, notwithstanding their fervent submission that it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional service tax authorities to present definite, and supported, allegations against them, to produce documents claimed to be in their possession as proof of their compliance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88,55,932 from 19 clients in 2005-06 with tax liability of ₹ 10,83,966 but of which appellant did remit only ₹ 18,449 as tax and ₹ 6,169 as interest on 3 rd January 2007, it is the claim of the appellant that this amount, paid in good faith, represented a consideration that they were unable to reconcile and was not admission of culpability as alleged. While admitting to receipt of ₹ 88,55,932 during 2005-06, it is contended that those were fortuitous recoveries of dues written off in earlier years, but, nonetheless, not liable to be included in the notice as tax liability had been discharged before the write off in the relevant years. This was one aspect of the dispute in which attempted reconciliation was reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reconciliation of the discrepancies between the computation derived from the trial balance and the tax recorded as having been discharged in the statutory returns. At the same time, from the correspondence referred to in the orders of the lower authorities, it would appear that the show cause notice is sketchy on the nature of the allegation against the appellant. It should have been within the scope of the lower authorities, in the course of the reported correspondence, to throw light on the source of the computed figure on the basis of which the alleged deficit was formalised in show cause notice. It is but fair to expect the appellant to respond only thereafter. 6. Turning to the third aspect of alleged and unreported rendering of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appear from the records that the two lower authorities have failed to ascertain the relationship between the three entities and the identification of the client from whom, or on whose behalf, consideration has been received by the appellant. From a perusal, it would appear that it is newspaper establishment that pays the appellant for acting as its agent. If that be the indicator of recompense for provision of service, it would appear that the appellant is not the provider of the service to the other agencies which is contrary to the surmise, and conclusion, in the findings of the two lower authorities. From this factual matrix alone, we can deduce that the lower authorities have, in their findings, misdirected themselves, in the determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
