Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 976 - AT - Service TaxMandap Keeper service - case of appellant is that appellant are not providing such service - HELD THAT:- Both the firms are providing Outdoor Catering Service, whereas Mandap keeper Service is not provided by the Appellant and it is exclusively provided by M/s V.K.Bhandari. Therefore, even if entries of the services provided by the two firms are in the common records, it cannot be held that the Appellant M/s Bhandari Caterer is liable of evasion of tax of Mandap Keeper Service, as this service is being provided exclusively by the another registratant i.e M/s V.K.Bhandari. The Firm M/s V.K. Bhandari is owned by Shri V.K.Bhandari father of Shri Santosh Bhandari (Appellant) and even if he had assisted in the activities of his father’s firm M/s V.K.Bhandari, which is a separate legal entity and providing Mandap Keeper Service, demand in respect this service cannot be raised on the Appellant, as they are not providing Mandap Keeper Service. There is no evidence, in the form of statement of any person, whose, names are appearing in the entry to confirm that Mandap Keeper service was provided to them. The allegation of provision of service is made only on the basis of entries in the record without any evidence to support these allegations. The demand is thus raised on the basis of mere assumption and presumption that premises were rented against such entry. In absence any such corroborative evidences to support the allegation, demand is not sustainable. Outdoor Catering Service - Appellant’s argument is that as against various entries of the enquires, they have provided catering service for a few entries, however, the Department has presumed that catering was provided against all enquiry appearing in the record - HELD THAT:- The Department has not substantiated the allegation about service provided by conducting further enquiries in the form of statement from the person whose names were appearing in the suggestive menu/quotation for which no bill was raised, to confirm that they have availed catering service from the Appellant. The SCN alleges provision of service for several crore against which tax is not discharged, however, there are no evidence of recovery of unaccounted money. Thus, demand is raised on merely on the assumption that catering was provided by the appellant against all the entries in the resumed document. There are no corroborative evidences for such allegation, in absence of which, allegation as contained in the Show Cause Notice cannot survive. Consequently, demand is not maintainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|