The burden of proof lies on the party claiming exemption from service tax, and mere non-payment does not justify invoking the extended period of limitation without evidence of intent to evade tax.

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-APPL-001-NOIDA-14-24-25 dated 21/04/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida. By the impugned order following has been held:-

“ORDER

1. The Appeal No. 206/ST/NOIDA/APPL/NOI/2024-25 dated 17.09.2024 filed by M/s Anil Singh Verma is hereby rejected and the impugned OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner CGST Division-II, Noida is upheld.

2. The appeal stands disposed-off in terms of findings supra.”

2.1 Appellant is registered with the Department under the Registration No.AADPV4501CSD002 for providing taxable services as defined by Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 66B of the Act.

2.2 On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department for the Financial Year 2014-15 it was observed that appellant had short paid service tax as detailed in table below:-

2.3 Appellant vide letters dated 07.12.2020 and 13.08.2021 was asked to furnish details of payment of service tax along with ST-3 returns and reason of differences in value as shown in service tax return and income tax return. However, no reply was received from the party.

2.4 Alleging suppression, a show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:-

“(i) The Service Tax amounting to Rs.169393/ should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act, 1994 read with Section 142 , Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 .

(ii) The due interest on the amount of Service Tax mentioned at (i) above should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 , Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 .

(iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 142 , Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for failure to pay service tax & suppressing the facts and value of taxable service with intent to evade payment of service tax.

(iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77 (1)(c) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 142 , Section 173 and Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for not furnishing the information and produce the documents.”

2.5 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original No.108/AC/DIV-II/Noida/2023-24 dated 12.07.2024 holding as follows:-

“ORDER

(i) I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting Rs.1,69,393/-(Rupees One Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three Only) not paid/short paid by the party, on the taxable wafue during the period of 2015-16 & 2016-17 under the provisions of Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 .

(ii) I confirm the demand of interest on the party, at an applicable rates during the relevant period, on the amount of Service Tax demanded/confirmed at point (1) above, under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 .

(iii) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,69,393/-(Rupees One Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three Only upon the party, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 . If the amount as determined under Section 73 above is paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order along with the interest payable thereon as per Section 75 , penalty will be only 25% of the service tax determined under . The benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the order.

(iv) I impose penalty of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) under Section 77 (1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 .”

2.6 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order.

2.7 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal.

3.1 I have heard Shri Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri A.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the revenue.

4.1 I have considered the impu