Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 889 - AT - Service TaxIssues Involved: The issues involved in this case include service tax liability calculation, submission of requisite documents, invocation of extended period of limitation, suppression of facts, and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST. Service Tax Liability Calculation: The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, received payments during the financial year 2012-2013 on which TDS was deducted. The service tax liability was calculated based on the total amount received, and a demand of Rs. 4,25,665/- was proposed to be recovered with interest and penalties. The appellant failed to submit required documents, leading to the confirmation of the demand. Submission of Requisite Documents: Despite opportunities for personal hearing and submission of documents, the appellant did not provide the necessary paperwork before the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant's defense reply was not accepted, and the adjudicating authorities confirmed the demand due to the lack of relevant documents. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation as the appellant was alleged to have suppressed facts with the intent to evade payment of service tax. The appellant contested that the extended period was wrongly invoked as there was no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. Suppression of Facts: The department alleged suppression of facts based on discrepancies in the invoices submitted by the appellant. The appellant argued that the cutting in the dates of the invoices was not intentional misrepresentation and that the demand was raised without proper investigation or evidence of willful suppression. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST: The appellant claimed eligibility for the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST. The Tribunal found no reason to deny this contention and held that the demand could not be confirmed based on the discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS without examining the reasons for such differences. Conclusion: After considering the arguments and perusing the record, the Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to refute the contentions raised in the show cause notice and that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked. The decision in a specific case was held to cover the impugned issue, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
|