Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, SHAIL JAIN
Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi South – Appellant
Versus
Indure (P) Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. differential service tax liability assessed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. no substantial question of law—appeal dismissed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 30th July, 2024 by which the appeal of the Department has been dismissed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'CESTAT').
3. On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the Respondent and they were directed to file the relevant documents which are relied upon in support of the CA certificate, along with the reply to the appeal.
4. Today, Mr. Bhatia has appeared for the Respondent. Mr. Tyagi and Mr. Bhatia have been heard.
5. The short question that arises in this matter is whether the Respondent was liable to pay any service tax on the differential amount which was reflected in the returns filed under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter, ‘the VAT Act’) and under the Service Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter, ‘the 1994 Act’). The said issue has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority which has framed the following questions:
“Whether
Service tax demands cannot be based on mere discrepancies without proper evidence; best judgment assessments must derive from substantiated materials.
The principle that payment of service tax on gross receipts exempts a contractor from simultaneous VAT liability was established, requiring proper verification by the assessing authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
