CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2 Service Tax Appeal No. 60116 of 2024 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JNK-EXCUS-APP-69-2023-24 dated

31.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Jammu]

M/s Narinder Kapoor ……Appellant

7, 2^nd Floor, New Shopping Centre, Ghumar Mandi Ludhiana, Punjab 141001 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise and ……Respondent Service Tax, Ludhiana GST Bhawan, F Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Punjab 141001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Kanish Saini, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60634/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 24.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 24.06.2025 ASHOK JINDAL:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of service tax has been confirmed based on the information received from the Income Tax Department.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is involved in providing liaising services to various exporters. During the period 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, the Revenue sought information from the Income Tax through Form 26AS and a query was made on 18.12.2020. Thereafter, immediately, on 28.12.2020 the show cause notice has been issued alleging that appellant has not provided the detail. The matter was adjudicated and presumed that the amount shown against receipt for services in Form 26AS as amount of service rendered by the appellant and the demand has been confirmed along with interest and penalties were also imposed.

Against the said order, the appellant is before me.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that admittedly in this case period involved is 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 and Form 26AS with the Income Tax Department was very much available during the said period only. Therefore, the show cause notice issued on 28.12.2020 is barred by limitation. To support this contention, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Mega Trends Advertising Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2020 (38) GSTL 57 (T).

3. On the other hand, learned authorized representative drew my attention to the show cause notice and submits that in this case a deficiency memo was issued to the appellant to demand income tax returns, balance sheet along with profit and loss account, Form 26AS, ST-3 returns, copy of work order contract etc, for the financial year 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 and April, 2017 to June, 2017. Vide issuance of the letter dated 18.12.2020 and till 28.12.2020, the appellant did not respond and the show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, during adjudication proceedings also, the appellant has not produced any document in support of their claim. Therefore, extended period is rightly invoked as appellant has suppressed the facts.

4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

5. Admittedly, in this case demand has been confirmed on the basis of best judgment assessment for the period 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, whereas the data sought from the appellant for the year

2014-2015 to June, 2017 as a whole and it has been alleged that the appellant has suppressed the facts and on that basis best judgment assessment has been done against the appellant. But, no demand has been raised in the show cause notice for the period March, 2015-2016 and April, 2017 to June, 2017 and no reasons has been recorded for non raising the said demand. Admittedly, no investigation has been conducted in this case and show cause notice has been issued to the appellant in haste only giving time of ten days to the appellant to file the documents for the period which has been expired three years prior to the date of writing the letter and within ten days, they have issued the show cause notice which is not justified in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation and all the information gathered by the Revenue through Form 26AS are in public