9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is registered with the service tax department for providing taxable services of clearing and forwarding agency. The appellant has filed it service tax returns for the half year ending September, 2016 and March, 2017, but inadvertently either due to technical glitches in the portal or due to data punching error, correct date could not be carried in the service tax returns for the period 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 for the months of January, 2017 and March, 2017 while uploading. The errors went unnoticed and only at the time of statutory audit of the appellant in the month of August, 2017, these errors came to be noticed, but since the time period for revision of service tax returns got lapse by the time, revised service tax returns cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating Authority vide its order dated 29.06.2022 confirmed the demand merely on the basis of few mistakes in the returns for the months of January, 2017 and March, 2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4.1 The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the necessary documents which were submitted in response to the show cause notice and again submitted during the course of personal hearing explaining the doubts raised by the Revenue. 4.2 He also submits that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT. 4.3 He further submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation. Show cause notice was issued on the basis of differences between the Form-26AS and the Balance Sheet furnished by the appellant. He also submits that in the show cause notice there is no allegation of suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. He also submits that it is a settled law that unless the ingredients of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 are complied with, extended period cannot be invoked. 4.4 In support of his submissions, the learned Consultant relies on the following decisions: * Raghubar Mandal vs. State of Bihar - 1957 (5) TMI 28 SUPREME COURT * Kathyaini Hotels vs. ACCT - 2002 (1) TMI 1134 SUPREME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch in the gross amount declared in the ITR/TDS on the services during the period of FY 2016-17. Further, I find that due to portal glitches, certain errors were there in the service tax returns for the second half year period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017; but at the time of statutory audit, the exact liability was indentified and entire amount was deposited. The information sought by the Revenue was supplied along with the relevant documents, but despite that, show cause notice was issued after inordinate delay of more than three years and by resorting to best judgment assessment, the demand was confirmed without looking into the documents/information supplied by the appellant. 8. Further, I find that there is no allegation of suppressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
