2025-VIL-2103-CESTAT-MUM-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Short payment of service tax, Wrong categorization of services in ST-3 return – Appellant had booked expenditure towards bank guarantee commission, technical assistance, legal and professional fees, and communication charges under the heading 'Business Auxiliary Services' (BAS) instead of 'Management and Business Consultation Services' (MBC) in its ST-3 returns, thereby not appropriately depositing the service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism - Whether the payment of service tax under a wrong heading can be considered as discharge of the liability, even though the description of service was not accurate – HELD - Description of service has become redundant with effect from 1.07.2012 after introduction of Negative list as Section 65A(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 says that those provisions shall not apply with effect from 1.07.2012 and therefore, merely because a column is available to put description of service in ST-3 Return, in which a wrong service description is entered by the appellant, it would never mean that the entire payment made by the appellant would not get credited to the account of the Government and it would be required to pay the same tax once again - The tax already paid under a wrong category can always be considered towards the discharge of liability under another category/new category – Further, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there was no suppression of facts, and the entire data was taken by the audit team to prepare its report – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page