##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010166902024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : C.Ex.App./6/2025

COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND EXCISE, DIBRUGARH, C.R. BUILDING, 'F' LANE, MILAN NAGAR, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS

M/S RISHU ENTERPRISE CHURCH FIELD, NEHRU MAIDAN, P.O. TEZPUR 784001, DIST. SONITPUR,

ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M L GOPE, MR S K SAHA,MS. N HAWELIA

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

06.04.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the CGST. Also heard Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

Page No.# 2/7

2. The appellant challenges the Final Order No.75177/2024 dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata on various grounds, one being that the learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the seriousness and gravity of the respondent/assessee’s conduct, which involves non-compliance with statutory requirements and failure to furnish documentary evidence, despite

being given ample opportunity.

3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent/assessee did not submit any written reply to the Demand-cum-Show-Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020. It did not provide work orders, payment vouchers or running bills to support it’s contention that the services provided were not liable to service Tax. Instead, reliance was placed on income tax records including Form-26AS and Audited Financial Statements, which by themselves were insufficient to rebut the Service

Tax demand.

4. The further case of the appellant is that the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in concluding that Service Tax demand based solely on Form-26AS was unsustainable. Also in the absence of any supporting documents or explanation from the respondent/assessee, the Adjudicating Authority was justified in confirming the Service Tax demand of Rs.2,60,99,364/-, for the period from

2014-2015 to 2017-2018.

5. The respondent’s case on the other hand is that assessee in their reply to the Demand-cum-Show- Cause Notice, vide letter dated 20-02-2021, prayed for

Page No.# 3/7

allowing them 30 days time to submit relevant documents, besides the Form- 26AS for the years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, Audited Balance Sheets and copies of the Income Tax Returns submitted for the above period. Further, since they could not locate Work Orders relating to their earlier years, they prayed for time from the Adjudicating Authority to collect the required documents and

submit the same.

6. As can be seen, the Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 23-03-2022, had passed the following order regarding the demand of Service Tax as follows:

“a. I confirm the demand of Service Tax and cess amounting to Rs. 2,60,99,364/-(Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred and. Sixty Four only) from M/s Rishu Enterprise for the period from 2014-15 (Oct-March) to 2017-18 (April-June) which is to be recovered in terms of proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act' 1994

read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 and order for recovery of same.

b. I also order for recovery of interest at the applicable rates from M/s Rishu Enterprise on the amounts demanded at (a) above, in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act,

2017.

c. I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,60,99,364/-(Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Four only) on M/s Rishu Enterprise under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. However, in terms of second proviso to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the noticee has the option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed if they pay the entire amount of service tax demanded along with interest and such reduced penalty (here 25%)

within thirty days from communication of this order.

d. I impose penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) o