9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords, the other two issues have been decided against the appellant and the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority has been upheld. 2. The issues that arose for consideration before the Commissioner (Appeals) are : (i) non-payment of service tax on invoice dated 10.11.2013 said to have been issued by the appellant to M/s Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 2,95,61,818/- resulting in service tax liability of Rs. 36,53,841/-; (ii) short payment of service tax of Rs. 6,42,177/- as per reconciliation of balance sheet with respect to ST-3 returns; and (iii) non-payment of service tax on Rs. 31,84,835/- which was shown as "work-in-progress" in the books of account of the appellant. 3. Rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of the invoice in question. This amount of Service Tax is also mentioned in Service Tax return ST-3 filed by partner of Appellant. However, the contentious issue remains as to whether this amount indeed pertains to the discharge of Service Tax liability in respect of the invoice No. DHV/F&AIPMC-BUIDCO/118/1311 dated 10.11.2013. I would note the Appellant has not provided any records documents that would support their contention that their consortium partner has discharged the impugned liability for Service Tax as pertaining to the invoice dated 10.11.2013 because the Challan only shows the deposition of amount of Rs. 36,53,841/-, it has not been correlated to the impugned invoice details. 6.9 In this regard, it is pertinent to note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by the consortium partner, it would be in the fitness of things that the adjudicating authority examines this issue and it would be not appropriate to examine this issue in this appeal. 7. The second issue that arises for consideration is whether the service tax to the extent of Rs. 6,42,177/- has been paid on the excess income of Rs. 51,95,614/- by the service tax recipient, namely, M/s Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. 8. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant had submitted a letter dated December 08, 2015 along with a letter submitted by M/s Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. giving details of the service tax paid by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant had received the payment in that particular year, more particularly when the contention of the appellant was that it had not received any payment and the amount was only shown as "work-in-progress" in the balance sheet. This demand, which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, deserves to be set aside. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal has to be allowed in part. As regards the first issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration after examination of the evidence. This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not require any interference. The second issue, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
