CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand as it was Based Solely on Income Tax Form 26AS

Rajeshwar Prasad Choudhari Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

Introduction: The article delves into the case of Rajeshwar Prasad Choudhari vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata), where the appellant contested a service tax demand primarily relying on Form 26AS data. The Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata overturned the order, citing insufficient evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Appeal: The appeal was filed against the order dated 19.05.2023, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax demand imposed by the Adjudicating authority. The appellant, Rajeshwar Prasad Choudhari, challenged the demand amounting to Rs. 6,98,811/- along with interest and penalties.

2. Grounds of Challenge: The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation, emphasizing that proceedings were solely based on information available in Form 26AS. They contended that as these figures were part of the public Profit/Loss Account, there was no suppression. Additionally, they cited the absence of positive evidence to prove malafide intentions or mens rea, crucial for invoking extended limitation.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.