Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1037 - AT - Service TaxPeriod of limitation - Demand for recovery of short paid Service tax - Rent-a-cab services provided under contract upon pro-rata kilometer basis - Held that:- the issue is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Vijay Travels [2015 (1) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In the present case, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked and confirmed against the appellant, as the appellant had suppressed the correct value received from their customers during the relevant period and the leviability of Service Tax had not been disputed by the appellant at any point of time. Imposition of penalty - Demand for recovery of short paid Service tax - Period involved is 2002-03 to 2006-07 (upto Sept. 2006) - Rent-a-cab services provided under contract upon pro-rata kilometer basis - For the initial period of one year, the duty was calculated on the basis of invoices issued by the Appellant, whereas for the subsequent period, the Service Tax liability was determined on the basis of balance sheet figures as the Appellant failed to produce the relevant invoices on the plea that the same were destroyed in flood. Held that:- the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, after deliberating various pleas of the Appellant, observed that the Chartered Accountant's certificate produced by the appellant in support of their claim that the gross receipts shown in the balance sheets include the value of materials supplied to the customers, could not be accepted, as it has no relation to their plea that the figures shown in the balance sheet are inflated for various business purposes. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the specific findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, we find force in the contention of the learned Advocate that in view of the principle laid down in Krishnaram Dyeing and Finishing Works case [2013 (8) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], on compliance of the condition of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, they would be eligible to pay 25% of the penalty, which has not been objected to by the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
|