SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

B.S.V.MURTHY
Bhogilal Chhagulal & Sons – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Vipul Khandhar,R. Nagar

ORDER

1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" as defined under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act 1994 (hereinafter after referred to as ‘the Act’) and holding service tax registration AADFB7806LST001. On the basis of the CERA audit, it was observed that the assessee had shown receipts as Rs. 2,46,22,757/- taxable value for the period from 2004-05 to 2006-07 in their Profit & Loss Account filed by them with the Income Tax return. It was observed that the income declared by appellants in their balance sheet filed with Income Tax department is higher than the income declared in their ST-3 returns for the years 2004-05 to 2006-07. The value realized as per balance sheets was Rs. 2,46,22,757/- whereas they had declared the value of Rs. 2,32,37,069/- in their ST-3 returns for the period from 2004-05 to 2006-07. Therefore, the appellants were liable for payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 1,86,557/- on Rs. 13,85,688/- being the differential value between the Income Tax returns & ST-3 returns (Rs. 2,46,22,757 - Rs. 2,32,37,069). Thus, it was alleged that the appellants have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top