Service Tax Case law
Hanumandhan.R
(Querist) 20 November 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir
anybody can give the decision of the service tax case give below
OM SAI PROFESSIONAL DETECTIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES PVT .LTD VS CCE(CESTAT BANGALORE) DATED 07.05.2008
WITH FULL FACT
THANKS
A V Vishal
(Expert) 20 November 2009
Om Sai Professional Detective And Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs The
Commissioner Of Central Excise on 27/9/2007
ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The appellant is required to pre-deposit Service Tax amount of Rs.
1,49,513/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The appellants were carrying on the
services of Security Agency. They were covered under the said category and were
discharging the service tax. There were certain taxable income which according
to them is not taxable as the said amount collected by them has been shown in
the Income Tax returns filed with the Income Tax Department. The Revenue
proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they have suppressed the
income shown in the Income Tax returns and hence the larger period was invoked.
The appellant's contention is that the Income Tax returns were public documents
and they have not suppressed the facts. The appellants relying on the following
Apex Court judgments and the Tribunal judgment pleaded that they were in a bona
fide belief that the declaration in the Income Tax returns itself is a fact of
disclosure:
(i) Tamilnadu Housing Board v. CCE
(ii) Cosmic Dye Chemicals v. CCE
(iii) Dadha Pharmaceuticals v. CCE
(iv) M.K. Kotecha v. CCE
(v) CCE v. Jalani Enterprises
2. I have heard both the sides in the matter. The learned Counsel took me
through the submissions made by them before the authority and produced the copy
of the judgments relied on by them. He pleaded that once the declaration has
been made with the Income Tax Department, there was no suppression of facts in
the matter. He submits that when they came to know that service tax was payable
on the gross amounts billed and received from their clients, they have
voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 8,63,308/- towards the differential tax for
the period from April 2005 to march 2006.
3. The learned DR took me through the findings of the Commissioner who has
not accepted the plea. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether the
Commissioner has given any finding on the Apex Court judgments, the learned DR
answered in the negative.
4. On a careful consideration of the matter, I notice that the Revenue has
proceeded against the appellants on the basis of the Income Tax returns. The
fact of the details has been disclosed in the Income Tax returns which indicates
that there was no suppression of facts. Therefore prima facie, the judgments of
the Apex Court cited above would have a bearing of this case. The Commissioner
has also noted all the citations but has not given any finding in Para 18 of the
impugned order. Prima facie, the appellants have strong case to succeed on time
bar.
5. Hence the stay application is allowed by granting waiver of pre-deposit of
the amounts and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal
to come up for final hearing in its turn.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
