CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60265 of 2024 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 149-ST-CGST-APPEAL-GURUGRAM-SKS-2023- 24 dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax, Gurugram, Haryana]

Rakesh Singhal ……Appellant

11 Vishal Market, Opp Rahul Motors Hisar, Haryana

125001 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise and ST, ……Respondent Rohtak

2^nd Floor, Pacific City Centre, Opposite Shangrila Hotel, Rohtak, Haryana 124001 APPEARANCE:

Present for the Appellant: Ms. Krati Singh with Shri Monarch Mittal, Advocates Present for the Respondent: Shri Narinder Singh and Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorized Representatives CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 60621/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 06.03.2025 DATE OF DECISION:23.06.2025 S. S. GARG:

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original dated

30.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Rohtak whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,04,40,288/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 along with appropriate rates of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, vide the impugned order, also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(1)(c)(i) of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST, Act.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant was running the proprietorship firm under the name of S.S. Cargo and was engaged in providing services in the category of Transport of goods by road/goods transport agency service ("GTA services") to various companies & transporters. He was regularly filing its ST-3 returns in accordance with the provisions the Act and after deducting Tax deducted at Source ("TDS"), also regularly filed its Income Tax Returns ("ITRs").

2.2 During the investigation, the Department on the basis of CBDT data of the appellant noticed certain discrepancies pertaining to sale of service figures as per the Service Tax Returns ("STR") and value on which TDS has been deducted as per Form 26AS and as per ITR filed for the relevant period. On the basis of these discrepancies, show cause notice dated 24.12.2020 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of service tax on account of short payment of tax due to mismatch between its ST-3 and 26AS/ITR returns, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant filed reply on 01.04.2021 through speed post but no personal hearing notice was received by the appellant. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty against the appellant, on the ground that the GTA services provided by the appellant qualify to be 'taxable service' under the Section 65B(51) of the Act and thus is liable to be subjected to service tax under the Section 66B of the Act. The Order-in-Original was passed ex-parte on the ground that the appellant neither filed a reply to the show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedents. He further submits that it is a settled principle of law that demand cannot be raised on the appellant solely on the basis of difference between ST-3 and 26AS/ITR. She further submits that the Departm