9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egory of rent-a-cab operator services. In follow up of verification of third party data for the year 2015-2016, the appellant was called upon to submit documents like profit and loss account, balance sheet, ST-3 returns and the agreements with the service recipient etc. which were provided. While cross verifying the gross receipt of ITR/26AS vis-à-vis ST-3 the values reflected in ST-3 returns, the department got to know that the appellant had received Rs. 26,99,488/- as income during the relevant period of financial year 2015-2016. From the further scrutiny of documents it was noticed that the order value/the invoice value is inclusive of service tax i.e. the appellant has received service tax from GAIL. Based on these observations t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,455/- was received from M/s GAIL India Ltd. on which service tax of Rs. 3,91,276/- has been demanded from the appellant. However, the said service tax was payable by the service recipient under Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Entry No. 7(a) of Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012. It is submitted that the said submission has not been considered by the adjudicating authorities below. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is registered for rendering taxable service with effect from the year 2009. The certificate to the said effect is placed on record. It is mentioned that till July 2012, the appellants were regularly filing their ST-3 returns because till that date the service tax liability with respect to 'rent-a-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirming the impugned demand. 5. The certificate issued by M/s GAIL India Ltd is also impressed upon wherein it has been mentioned that the 100% service tax stands already paid the service recipient/M/s GAIL India Ltd. it is submitted that the confirmation of demand is nothing but the double payment of the same service tax for the same period. Learned counsel has further mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) despite has referred the said certificate still has confirmed the demand contrary to the said deposition. Above all, based on the third party data, the demand cannot be confirmed. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of M/s Sipani Enterprises Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax department the appellant had failed to file the ST returns. Hence there is no infirmity in the order imposing penalty of Rs. 40,000/- the non-filing of service tax returns also amounts to the suppression of fact which resulted into evasion of tax. Hence the penalties under Section 77 are also rightly imposed. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival contentions, perusing the entire record, I observe following to be the admitted facts: (i) The appellant is providing the taxable 'rent-a-cab operator service'. (ii) It was registered for the same with service tax department since the year 2009. (iii) Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012 exempts service provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observation itself is sufficient for me to hold that the appellant cannot be asked to again pay the same amount of service tax for the same the period as stands already paid by the service recipient in compliance of the Notification No. 30/2012. 9. Department's own circular (CBEC) bearing No. 341/18/2004 has clarified that the Reverse Charge Mechanism should not lead to double taxation i.e. once the tax liability is discharged regardless of the person, who discharged the assessee cannot be made to pay the tax again. I draw the support from the decision in the case of Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has relied upon by the appellant wherein it was held that once the government received the entire amount of tax assessee cannot be called u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC).. Also I observe that department has not proved any act of suppression on part of appellant as is otherwise alleged for invoking the extended period of limitation while issuing the show cause notice. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC), further I am not convinced with the findings of the Tribunal which placed the onus of providing evidence in support of bona fide conduct, by observing that, the appellants had not brought anything on record, to prove their claim of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
