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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 34

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member
M/s AKRK Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Meerut – Respondent
Service Tax Appeal No.70419 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Aalok Arora
For the Respondents: Smt Chitra Srivastava

Service tax liabilities require substantiation with appropriate documentation; failure to do so justifies tax demands and penalties.

Headnote:(A) Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 73, 75, 78, and 70 - Service tax demand of Rs. 7,36,202/- confirmed against the appellant for the FY 2016-17 for service tax, along with interest and penalties - The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to justify their claim of tax payments - The case was remanded for verification of service tax deposits. (Paras 5.9, 6.1.2, 4.4)

(B) Remand Proceedings - The issue regarding the service tax liability on renting of immovable property and related claims were remanded, wherein the court upheld the adjudicating authority's right to demand interest and penalties based on the appellant's failure to substantiate their claims. (Paras 4.8, 4.9)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from service tax demands confirmed for various services rendered by the appellant. The appellant claimed that a portion of the service tax had already been deposited, while the department asserted that there was a significant shortfall in payments based on third-party information. (Paras 1.2, 2.6)

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found that the appellant had failed to present adequate evidence to claim exemption from service tax and upheld the imposition of penalties subject to the adjustments of any service tax amounts that had been confirmed as paid by them. (Paras 4.6, 4.7)

Issues: The main issues include the justification of service tax demands based on purported income discrepancies and the appropriateness of penalties levied under the relevant financial acts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of sufficient documentation to substantiate claims of tax payments allowed the imposition of tax demands, interest, and penalties, confirming the jurisdiction of the revenue authority to adjudicate these issues.

Result: Appeal is partly allowed.

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-In-Appeal No. GZB-EXCUS-000-APPL-MRT- 91 -24-25 dated 03.07.2024 of the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Meerut. By the impugned order following has been held:

“5. Accordingly, I reject the. subject appeal [Appeal No. 92-ST/APPL- MRT/MRT/2023-24 dated 23.02.2024] filed by M/s AKRK Fertilizers (P) Ltd., Chetna Market, Pul Khumran, Saharanpur (U.P.).”

1.2 By Order-in-Original No. 13/AC/ST/SRE/2023 dated 26.12.2023 following has been held:

(i) I confirm the demand and recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs.7,36,202/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Two Only) (including Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swachh Bharat Cess) for the period 2016- 17 from them by invoking first proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act. 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service, Tax Act, 2017

(ii) I confirm the demand and recovery of Interest from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

(iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.7,36,202/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Two Only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

(iv) I impose a penalty / Late fee of Rs.40,000/- [Rs. Forty thousands only] under section 70 of Finance Act 1994, read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Section 174.of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for non- filing of ST-3 Return the Period October, 2016 to March, 2017 This order is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Goods and Services Tax/Act, 2017 or-under any other law for the time being in force.

2.1 Appellant was registered with the department vide Service Tax Registration No. AABCA1962BSTOO1D001 and was engaged in providing taxable services as defined under Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994 .

2.2 From the third party information, as received from the Income Tax Department, it was observed that during the fiscal year 2016-17 there was difference between the value of services declared/reflected in their Income Tax Return/Form-26AS and the value of services as declared in the respective ST-3 returns thereby resulting in short payment of service tax as detailed in table below:

2.3 Appellant was vide letters dated 05.03.2021 and 05.08.2021 the appellant was requested to submit the requisite clarification regarding the said differential value of services in ITR vis-à-vis ST-3 returns and the apparent non-payment of service tax. However, no clarification/information was furnished by the appellant in this regard.

2.4 A Show Cause Notice dated 06-10-2021 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:

(i) Service Tax amounting to Rs.7,36,202/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Six Thousand ( Two Hundred and Two Only) (including Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swachh Bharat Cess)for the period 2016-17 should not be demanded and recovered from them by invoking first proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act,2017.

(ii) Interest should not be demanded and recovered from them on the aforesaid amount under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act.2017

(iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for suppression of facts and contravention of various provisions of Finance Act. 1994.

(iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 70 of the Finance Act. 1994and Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. 2017 for non-filina of ST-3 returns.

2.5 Show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No 37/AC/ ST/SRE/ 2022 dated 15.09.2022 holding as follows:

(i) I confirm the demand and recovery of S

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 Back to top