9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice; have intentionally and willfully suppressed the facts; did not pay service tax; did not file ST-3 Returns and as no proper data was made available, assessment requires to be made on best judgment method as per the provisions of Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 30.09.2022 has confirmed the demand of dutyalong with interest and imposed penalty under Section 75; penalty of Rs.80,000/- under Section 70; penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 and the penalty of Rs.38,16,394/- under Section 78. 2. Shri Atul Gupta, learned Consultant for the appellant, submits that no service tax liability can be fastened to the appellants as they are a GTA service provider and in terms of Notification No.30/2012- ST, service tax is liable to be paid on Reverse Charge Mechanism; the appellant is duly issuing consignment notes; the finding of the Commissioner that the details required under Rule 4B are absent in the consignment notes, is factually wrong; a perusal of the consignment note indicates that all the relevant particulars are available. He submits that even if the consignment note is not issued, there is no liability on the appellants as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld in many cases that when the whole case is made on the basis of Income Tax Returns and 26AS, which are available in the public domain, extended period cannot be invoked; extended period cannot be invoked merely for the fact that registration has not been obtained and the Returns have not been filed; during the relevant period, as the appellant was of the opinion that the service tax on GTA services is to be paid by the receiver and not by the service provider, they did not get themselves registered and thereby did not file the Returns also. He relies on the following cases: Sarvan Kumar S/O Inder Singh vs. CCE-Rohtak - 2023 (10) TMI 884 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi vs. Jitender Lalwani - 2017 (51) S.T.R. 312 (Tri. Del) CST, New Delhi vs. Kamal Lalwani - 2017 (48) S.T.R. 552 (Tri. Del.) M/s Pappu Crane Service vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow - 2019 (7) TMI 1885 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD K. T. Murukan vs. Commissioner (Appeals-I), C. Ex., Cus., Cochin - 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 248 (Ker.) D. N. Pandey & Company vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & ST, Allahabad 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 108 (Tri. All.) Ruchi Infotech Ltd. vs. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g duty on the basis of available records. Learned Authorized Representative submits that the appellant's averment that service tax on GTA service is payable on Reverse Charge Mechanism basis could not be verified as they have not supplied the entire records but only submitted sample invoices. 7. Learned Authorized Representative submits on the appellant's contention that Show Cause Notice cannot be issued on the basis of 26AS statements; as stated above, the appellants did not utilize the opportunitygiven, before issue of Show Cause Notice, by the Department to clarify their position; even during the adjudication proceedings, the appellant failed to submit relevant documents/ record for proper assessment of transactions; demand of Rs.3.5 crore cannot be assessed or finalized on the basis of sample invoices; the Adjudicating Authority has justified best judgment method of assessment in the impugned order; therefore, the case law relied upon by the appellants is totally misplaced. 8. Learned Authorized Representative further submits that the appellant's contention, that extended period is not invocable, is incorrect; the appellants did not register themselves and file Returns durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue claims that they have given three opportunities to the appellants by way of letters/ mails/ summonses and as the appellant did not supply data, they have taken recourse to best judgment method. The appellants claim that the summonses/ letters sent by the Department were not received by the appellant as the same were sent to their old address. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have registered themselves somewhere in 2017; the Department could have verified their premises and could have sent the letters etc. to the correct address; instead of doing the same and instead of causing a reasonable level of investigation, the Department proceeded to not only issue the Show Cause Notice but also to confirm the same on the basis of best judgment. The Department with all the might at their disposal could have verified the address of the appellants and the records thereof. Learned Authorized Representative submits that a huge demand of Rs.3.5 crore cannot be assessed or finalized on the basis of sample invoices. We find that for the same reason that the demand is huge, the Department should have undertaken appropriate investigation into the matter. We find that instead of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
