2025 (7) TMI 151 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - difference in the taxable value shown in ST-3 returns from the income booked in the statutory record like balance sheet vis- -vis job work receipt for the said period - demand based on the income tax returns/any third party data - invocation of extended period of limitation. Whether the appropriate amount of service tax has been paid by the appellant at the relevant time in terms of the statutory provisions of Point of Taxation Rules 2011? - HELD THAT - There is no denial with respect to the issuance of invoices however there is no evidence on record as to whether it got issued within 14 days. The burden was upon the department. The same remains undischarged. It is also observed that vide reply to Show Cause Notice dated 16.07.2021 it was conveyed that the appellants did not receive the payment of the amount of invoices due to some dispute in relation to billing. Department has failed to produce any evidence to falsify the said contention. Resultantly the situation remains is that there is no amount of consideration received. Hence the activity of appellant fails to fall under the scope of definition of service given under Section 66B of the Finance Act 1994 rendering of activity has to be quid pro quo of considering for it to be called as taxable service defined under Section 66B(44) of the Finance Act. In absence thereof question of leviability of service tax does not arise. It is observed that the only document based whereupon the demand has been confirmed is from 26AS from Income Tax Department. But the law is settled that Revenue cannot raise the demand on the basis of difference in the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns and those reflected in Form 26AS without examining the reasons for said difference and without establishing that the entire amount received by the appellant as reflected in the Form 26AS is the consideration for services provided and without examining whether the difference was because of any exemption or abatement. Invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The department came to know about the affairs of the appellant i.e. providing of taxable service in view of the admitted facts that appellant is a registered assessee under the Service Tax provision and have been filing their returns and paying tax. It is also not denied by the Revenue that the appellant was maintaining proper financial records register and vouchers for their transaction. Thus it is held that the appellant is wrongly alleged to have suppressed the material facts from the department regarding the failure to discharge service tax liability on the taxable receipts - it is held that extended period is wrongly invoked by the department while issuing the show cause notice. Since the entire period of demand is beyond the period of limitation the show cause notice is therefore held to be barred by time. The department has failed to prove its case against the appellant. The reliance of 26AS as the basis of demand is not permissible. There is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the allegations. The Show Cause Notice is already held to be barred by time. Hence the impugned order is held to have wrongly confirmed the demand - appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the demand of service tax based on discrepancies between the appellant's ST-3 returns and income reflected in statutory records such as Form 26AS can be sustained without examining the reasons for such difference and without corroborative evidence.

2. Whether the invocation of the extended period for issuing the Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, is valid in the absence of deliberate suppression of facts by the appellant.

3. Whether Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, which determines the point of taxation based on invoice issuance or receipt of payment, has been correctly applied in this case.

4. Whether the appellant suppressed material facts or misrepresented information to the department warranting imposition of penalties and extended limitation period.

5. Whether reliance on Form 26AS alone, without further examination, can be a valid basis for confirming the demand.

6. Whether the absence or incorrect mention of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the original order affects the validity of the proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Service Tax Demand Based on Discrepancies in Returns and Form 26AS

The relevant legal framework includes Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines taxable services, and the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, which determine the timing of service tax liability. The department relied on Rule 3 of these Rules, which states that the point of taxation is the earliest of the date of invoice issuance or receipt of payment.

The appellant contended that the demand based on income tax returns or third-party data such as Form 26AS is unsustainable without examining the reasons for discrepancies. The Tribunal referred to precedents including the Allahabad Bench decision in M/s Kush Constructions and the Bangalore Bench decision in Indus Motor Company, which held that demands based on assumptions or presumptions without examining the underlying reasons or exemptions are not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the department failed to discharge its burden of proving that invoices were issued within 14 days as required, or that the amounts reflected in Form 26AS were consideration for taxable services. The appellant had also explained that certain amounts were not received due to billing disputes, and the department did not produce evidence to refute this claim. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand based solely on Form 26AS without corroborative evidence was not valid.

2. Invocation of Extended Period and Allegation of Suppression

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act (applicable mutatis mutandis) allows reopening of proceedings within six months of the relevant date, with an extended period of five years if there is suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, or wilful default. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court decision in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals, which clarified that "suppression" must be deliberate and intentional non-disclosure of material facts to evade tax, not mere omission or failure to act.

In this case, the appellant had filed returns and maintained proper records, and the department was aware of the appellant's taxable activities. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate suppression or misrepresentation. The appellant had disclosed the non-receipt of certain payments and had not concealed any information. Therefore, the extended period was wrongly invoked, and the SCN issued in July 2021 for the 2016-17 period was barred by limitation.

3. Application of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011

The Tribunal examined Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, which sets the point of taxation as the earliest of invoice issuance or receipt of payment. The department's reliance on this rule presupposes that invoices were issued timely and payment was received. However, the department failed to prove timely issuance of invoices or receipt of payment for the disputed amounts. The appellant's contention that no payment was received due to disputes was unchallenged by evidence. Hence, the Tribunal held that the service tax liability did not crystallize for the disputed amounts under these rules.

4. Allegations of Non-Cooperation and Misrepresentation

The department alleged non-cooperation and suppression by the appellant. The Tribunal rejected these allegations, noting that the appellant had responded to audit queries and SCN with explanations supported by records. The appellant's returns were filed on time, and financial records were maintained. The Tribunal emphasized that mere differences in figures do not amount to suppression if the facts are known to both parties. Thus, the appellant was not guilty of misrepresentation or suppression warranting penalties or extended limitation.

5. Reliance on Form 26AS as Sole Basis for Demand

The Tribunal held that reliance on Form 26AS alone, which reflects income tax data, is insufficient to confirm a service tax demand. It must be established that the amounts reflected are consideration for taxable services and that the appellant failed to pay tax on such consideration. The Tribunal noted the settled legal position that revenue cannot raise demands based on assumptions from Form 26AS without examining exemptions, abatements, or reasons for discrepancies. The department's failure to produce such examination or evidence rendered the demand unsustainable.

6. Validity of Proceedings in Absence of Proper DIN

The appellant challenged the original order on the ground that the Document Identification Number (DIN) mentioned was incorrect or blank, citing Board Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST which mandates proper DIN for validity of proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed this as a flimsy ground, but the Tribunal noted that absence of a proper DIN invalidates the proceedings as per the circular. This procedural lapse further undermined the department's case.

Significant Holdings:

"The demand of service tax based on assumptions and presumptions cannot be confirmed."

"It is not legal to presume that the entire differential amount was on account of consideration for providing services."

"The act of suppression must be deliberate; mere omission or failure to do what might have been done does not amount to suppression."

"Reliance on Form 26AS without examining the reasons for difference or producing corroborative evidence is not permissible."

"The extended period for issuing show cause notice cannot be invoked in absence of deliberate suppression of facts."

"Absence of proper Document Identification Number (DIN) invalidates the proceedings."

The Tribunal concluded that the department failed to establish that the appellant had suppressed facts or that the demand was legally sustainable. The invocation of the extended period was improper, and the SCN was barred by limitation. The demand based solely on Form 26AS without corroborative evidence was not tenable. The procedural lapse regarding DIN further invalidated the proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order confirming the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.