Dream Spa Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand is confirmed since it is will established that assessee was collecting the service tax from its customers/ clients, however, the same was not deposited to the government exchequer. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Facts- Appellant is holding service tax registration for providing services of “Health Club & Fitness Centre Service and Beauty Parlour / Beauty Treatment services covered as taxable service under clause (51) read with clause (44) of Section 65B of the Act. Post search proceedings, it was revealed that during the period from September 2015 to June 2017 the appellant in their filed ST-3 returns had mis-stated and suppressed the taxable value with the intent to evade payment of service tax, the appellant has evaded service tax amounting to Rs.22,77,743/- against the taxable services rendered by them. It was also disclosed that the CENVAT Credit other than Rs. 46,454/- reflected in their ST-3 return is not admissible to the appellant as the appellant failed to take the CENVAT Credit against them within the prescribed time limit.
Conclusion- Held that appellant was issuing invoices/ bills showing service tax (including cess) from its client (service recipients) is established from the Bill Book provided by the appellant during the course of investigation. Though appellant was collecting the service tax (including cesses) from his clients but was not depositing the same with the exchequer is evident from the ST-3 returns filed.
