Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (5) TMI 721 - AT - Service TaxValidity of SCN - SCN failed to identify the alleged taxable service and the category of service - difference between the receipts in the profit loss account of the appellant and the taxable value declared in the ST-3 returns without even identifying the service and the taxable category - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - SCN mentions that the ST-3 returns and the balance sheet of the appellant had been perused and since the balance sheet shows Rs. 15, 03, 87, 703/- and ST-3 returns show a taxable value as Rs. 10, 34, 19, 681/- the appellant would have to pay service tax of Rs. 54, 49, 215/- on the taxable value of Rs. 4, 69, 68, 022/-. It is therefore clear that the show cause notice which was issued for the period April 01 2007 to March 31 2012 does not give any reason as to why the amount would be taxable and if so then under which category. What transpires from the show cause notice is that the difference between the amount shown in the balance sheet and the ST-3 returns has been construed to be a taxable amount. This issue regarding vagueness of the show cause notice in similar circumstances was examined by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE UDAIPUR 2021 (9) TMI 859 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that Neither is there any allegation in the two show cause notices nor any finding has been recorded in the impugned order to demonstrate how the provisions of 66 read with 66A of the Finance Act and the Import Rules are attracted. In fact neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order specify the category of service under which the demand has been confirmed against the Appellant. The demand has been proposed and confirmed merely because of difference between the figures in the balance sheet of the Appellant and the ST-3 Returns. In the present appeal also the demand has been proposed in the show cause notice only because of the difference between the figures shown in the balance sheet of the appellant and the ST-3 returns. The show cause notice therefore is vague. The order passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand on this show cause notice therefore deserves to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
|