9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h include inserting advertisements in daily newspapers, magazines, television channels, placing hoardings, contracting and reaching people over the telephone, informing the public of the facility and amenities of the hotel etc. 3. As the appellant was alleged to be providing taxable services, the Department issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2016 to the appellant to show cause as to why: a. Service Tax amounting to Rs 3,44,30,427/- for the period from FY 2011-12 to FY 2014-15 should not be demanded from them under sub-section (1) to section 73 of the said Act by invoking extended period as provided therein. b. Interest as applicable during the relevant period on the amount of Service Tax not paid, should not be charged and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. c. Penalty should not be imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. d. Penalty should not be imposed under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules. e. Penalty should not be imposed under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The appellant did not file any reply to the notice nor did they appear for personal hearing before the Commissioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case, no viable reason for rejection of our accounts has been given by the appellant. 7. The appellant has stated that since no demand is sustainable, therefore there is no question of imposing interest and penalty. The appellant have not suppressed or mis-declared any information, to evade payment of duty. Further, there was no discrepancy in the documents maintained by the appellant and their records can be verified by the appellant from their own records. 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department has reiterated the discussions and findings in the Order-in-Original and in Order-in-Appeal. He relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Shri Uday Veer Singh vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Final Order No.70532/2024 dated: 21.08.2024 in support of the Department's option to resort to Best Judgment method. 9. We have heard the learned authorized representative for the Department and perused the appeal paper book. We will now consider the first plea of the appellant. The appellant has submitted that they were not providing any taxable service to their client. In this context, we note that the appellant entered into a contract to provide promotional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'taxable service' under Section 66B of the Act (with effect from 01.07.2012) and thus service tax is leviable thereon in terms of Section 66B of the Act (with effect from 01.07.2012). 11. We now address the submissions on the Best Judgment method resorted to by the Department for the year 2014-15. The admitted facts are that the appellant did not submit the copy of the Balance Sheet for the year 2014-15. Consequently, the Department had to resort to Best Judgment method under section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994. 12. In this context, we note that the Delhi High Court in the case of National Building Construction Company ltd. vs. Union of India 2019(20) G.S.T.L. 515(Del.) observed as follows: "24. Reference was made to Section 72 of the Fin Act, which reads as under : - "72. Best judgment assessment.- If any person, liable to pay service tax,- .........." Section 72 of the Fin Act, as the heading empowers best judgment assessment in cases where a person liable to pay Service Tax (a) fails to submit return or (b) files a return but fails to access the tax in accordance with provisions of chapter or Rules. As per the respondents failure to pay Service Tax according to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be adjudicated. Said prescriptions and stipulations made in Section 73 are missing in Section 72 of the Fin Act, for the Section 72 only allows the Central Excise Officer to make "best judgment assessment‟. Section 72 of the Fin Act does not prescribe a procedure for taking up the Service Tax returns for assessments, except when refund of tax is due as per the return and has to be adjudicated." 13. In similar circumstances upholding the best judgment assessment made under Section 72, the Tribunal in Fort Health Club vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin 2010 (17) S.T.R. 154 (Tri. - Bang.) held as follows: "5. First and foremost, we find that the objection raised by the appellant regarding the invocation of Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 seems to be mis-placed. On perusal of the show cause notice, we find that the show cause notice specifically says that the service tax liability has been worked out based upon the best judgment method as there were no evidence coming forth from the appellant regarding the amount collected by the appellant towards services rendered. We also find that on the date of issuance of show cause notice, the provisions of Section 72 were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
