Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1130 - HC - Service TaxAdjustment to the excess payment of service tax with the short paid tax - Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- without specifically mentioning or referring to the relevant conditions for granting the benefit of adjustment in respect of the excess payment, the Tribunal simply observed that failure to comply with certain procedural conditions cannot be a ground to deny substantial benefit and that in principle, there can be no objection to the adjustment of service tax short paid and excess paid. But here again, it is to be noted that the said finding and reasoning were given by the Tribunal with reference to “some chart” prepared by the Appellant there, who is Respondent herein, as to the remittances revealing the excess payment. It is also evident from paragraph-3 of the order that, such a ‘chart’ was not forming part of the proceedings before the adjudicating authority and that the said ‘chart’ prepared on behalf of the assessee was produced by the learned counsel for the Respondent before the Tribunal with reference to the period of dispute, the payment affected to the tune of ₹ 1 crore 77 lacs and such other aspects. Since the remedy provided against the order of the Tribunal is only under limited circumstances as envisaged under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it was quite necessary for the Tribunal to have considered and discussed the relevant provisions of law, to sustain the order, which unfortunately is lacking in the instant case. More so, despite completion of service of notice to the Respondent, who was Appellant before the Tribunal has not chosen to appear before this Court, to put forth their version with regard to the sequence of events, the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law. The substantial question of law suggested by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue and raised, as taken note of by this Court in is answered in favour of the Revenue - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
|