9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by Commissioner, Raipur which also determines liability for their office at Nowrozabad within Bhopal jurisdiction, whether the demand to that extent is without jurisdiction, whether the appellant is entitled to cum tax benefit, whether the appellant is entitled to adjustment of the taxable value on receipt basis, as the demand pertains to the period prior to 01/04/2011 and further if penalty rightly is imposed under Sections 76, 77, 78 as well as late filing fee for returns under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2. Consequent to the investigations conducted by the Central Preventive by Raipur Commissionerate, show cause notice dated 18/10/2012 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 2007 - 2008 to 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly without jurisdiction, and the same is fit to be set aside. It is further contended that up to the period March 2011, service tax was leviable on the basis of receipt towards the services provided and not on billing basis or mercantile basis. The adjudication order erred in demanding service tax on the mercantile basis or billing basis. Secondly it is contended that the gross amount booked by the Revenue from the profit and loss account of the appellant, was the consolidated figure for both the units under Bhopal Commissionerate and under Raipur Commissionerate, being a proprietorship concern. The said gross amount included the element of service tax also charged in the bills. Accordingly the appellant is entitled for cum-tax benefit. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the notices, the penalty may be set aside. As far as late fee imposed under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules @ Rs. 20,000/- per return, the learned Counsel states that the same is highly excessive under the facts and circumstances and accordingly prays for reducing the said penalty of late fine. 6. The learned AR for Revenue Shri G.R. Singh, relies on the impugned order. He further points out from the findings in the impugned order and states that appellant had not taken up the issue of jurisdiction before the Adjudicating Authority. Secondly, in the show cause notice, where the service tax demand had been calculated, it is mentioned that service tax payable (as per actual security service receipts). Accordingly it is apparent that Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as to why the returns for about two years were in arrears and not filed, the learned Counsel have explained that the website of the Department - ACES, does not accept filing of the return unless the service tax payable as per return have been deposited. Further the learned Counsel demonstrated that due to heavy sundry debtors and/or amount receivable for services rendered and/or bills raised on the receiver of service, a PSU, have led to financial crisis and/or shortage of funds in the hands of the appellant, resulting into default in payment of tax, but there is no deliberate default. Further there is no case by Revenue that there has been diversion of funds from the business of the appellant for non-business use. Accordingly we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
