TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese were registered with the Department and discharging the service tax. The balance sheet of the appellant as a whole did not distinguish the different service centres. Further, the SCN did not give any reason to allege short levy except the difference between balance sheet and the ST-3 returns. The burden of explaining the difference amount being not taxable income has been shifted to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were registered with the Department for such payment. They were also filing regular ST-3 returns with the Department. The dispute in the present case relates to non-payment of service tax on certain consideration which is shown in their annual balance sheet for the year 2005-2006 and which appeared to have been not declared in the statutory ST-3 returns. Based on the difference between the ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and defended their case. Still the lower authorities proceeded to confirm the demand without verifying the details or justifying the demand. 3. The learned AR submitted that it is for the appellant to satisfactorily explain the difference between the balance sheet and the statutory returns. Since they were registered with the Department for payment of service tax under BAS the short levy was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier period, same dispute came up before the Tribunal in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 308 (Tri. Del.). It was observed that in the show cause notice there is not even single line describing as to what service was rendered by the appellant which is sought to be covered. Further, examining the defence submissions, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not liable to service tax. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
