9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994. On the basis of third-party information received from the income tax department, it was noticed that service tax amounting to Rs. 5,30,000/- on the taxable value of Rs.42,88,026/- during the period 2012-13 has not been paid by the appellant. Initially the Deputy Commissioner, CGST vide letter dated 13.04.2018, requested the appellant to submit the documents, i.e. ITRs, Balance Sheets, Form 26AS and ST-3 returns etc. for the period, 2012-13 to 2014-15 for examination of service tax liability on the services received by them in view of the data received from the income tax department, however, the appellant neither responded nor provided any documents. 3. Therefore, on the basis of the data r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant submitted that the appellant had adopted for Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) and therefore no demand could be raised for the period covered under VCES, i.e. April 2012 to December 2012. He relied on the provisions of section 108 of the Scheme to say that no demand can be raised pertaining to the said period. Also in terms of Section 111 of the Scheme the show cause notice is beyond the period of one year as specified therein and hence is barred by limitation. The learned counsel also submitted that since they are exempted due to the threshold limit exemption for small scale service providers, no service tax is leviable. The learned Counsel has also put forward the argument that the services provided by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been actively participating in the proceedings. Before issuing the show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner, CGST vide letter dated 13.04.2018, had requested the appellant to submit the documents, i.e., IRRs, Balance Sheets, Form 26AS and ST3 returns for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15 for examination of service tax liability on the services provided by them, however, the appellant never responded thereto nor submitted the requisite documents. Even after issuance of the show cause notice, the appellant did not submit any reply and though several opportunities were granted by the adjudicating authority the appellant did not appear and accordingly proceedings were concluded ex-parte. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted under the threshold limit as per the exemption notification for small scale service providers, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant has not produced any corroborative evidence either before the adjudicating authority or before him. Similarly, the contention of the appellant that the demand of service tax should be determined on the basis of cum-tax value benefit as they had not collected the tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not provided any documents in support of their claim. I agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that in the absence of any documentary evidence the claim of the appellant cannot be considered. 8. Normally, the present appeal needs to be rejected consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
