Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 166 - AT - Service TaxVague show cause notices (SCN) - Non-payment of services tax - reverse charge mechanism - Lease rent income - R&D Income - Commission on sale - Know How fee - Professional & Consultancy Expenses - Analytical testing Charges - Advertisement expenses - Bank Charges - Clinical trial & Lab Consumables - Legal Expenses - Marketing & Sales Promotion Expenses - Marketing and Research Overseas - Meeting & Conference - Royalty expenses - Training & Development Expenses - cases of appellant is that there is no classification of the taxable services given in the later 4 SCNs, later 4 SCNs are entirely based on balance-sheet figures without any investigation being conducted, there are case laws which suggests that show cause notices based only on balance sheet figures cannot stand in law, Place of provision of service rules have not been quoted in the later 4 show cause notices and that Negative list provisions have not been quoted in the show-cause-notices. - case of Revenue is that Appellant failed to provide the relevant evidence despite demand from the department. HELD THAT:- The burden was on the Revenue to prove the alleged shortcoming after the records of Appellant along with their C.A. certificate was already produced before the adjudicating authority. In the given circumstances, neglecting those evidences and without referring to any other evidence proving short payment on part of Appellant, confirmation of demand is not sustainable. The same is to be set aside. There is also a plea that a show cause notice dated 20.10.2008 cannot be referred to as "the previous" show cause notice for proposing the demand in impugned four show cause notices, appellants had submitted that no elaborate basis of charge was given in any of the subsequent show cause notices except making a reference to the previous show cause notice of 20.10.2008 - HELD THAT:- No scrutiny of record was done nor any document was examined. The demand is alleged to have been mechanically raised by simply ascertaining that the difference between the tax payable on balance sheet figures of income/expenditure and the tax paid as per ST-3 Returns is alleged to have been evaded that too by suppression of facts. Perusal of four of these show cause notices shows that nothing has precisely been discussed in the show cause notice for the impugned period. All these show cause notices are speaking about the records from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 which apparently and admittedly is not the period of demand in any of these show cause notices. The show cause notices are opined to be vague. Though the department has laid emphasis upon the Finance Act 2012, Section 73 thereof, but we are of the opinion that the said legal provisions for treating a subsequent show cause notice as continuation of the previous show cause notice where issue remains same, came only in the year 2012. The same cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Thus, each show cause notice had to be self contained, including all the details and basis for arriving at the allegation of short/non-payment of service as already observed above. Thus two of the SCNs are out of the scope of this provision. SCN of 2014 could rely upon the contents of the SCN of the year 2012 but later also a no detail except reliance upon SCN of 2008 which is not permissible - Resultantly, all four SCNs here are silent providing any basis to proceed against the appellant. The adjudicating authority below has concluded the erroneous findings. Not only this, the judicial indiscipline on the part of the authority is very much apparent - the demand and penalties/interest is set aside not only on the merits thereof but also for the show cause notice being not maintainable - the appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the department stands dismissed.
|