Anup Kumar Metya Vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.X. (CESTAT Kolkata)
Shri Anup Kumar Metya filed an appeal before CESTAT Kolkata against Order-in-Appeal No. 291/HAL/ST/2024-25 dated 12.08.2024, which had upheld the Service Tax demand, interest and penalties confirmed in Order-in-Original No. 64/AC/Haldia-II/ADJN/2023-24 dated 01.06.2023.
The proceedings originated from a Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2020 issued after comparison of the appellant’s Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS received from the Income Tax Department with his Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for 2014-15 to 2016-17. The Revenue proposed Service Tax demand of Rs. 5,19,009/- under the category of business auxiliary service under erstwhile Section 65(19) read with erstwhile Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed Service Tax of Rs. 4,93,426/- inclusive of cess, along with interest, a penalty equivalent to the tax under Section 78(1), and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 read with Section 174(2) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted that the demand had been raised solely by comparing third-party Income Tax data with the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account, without independent verification of the nature of services rendered or investigation at the service receiver’s end. The appellant also contended that the demand for 2014-15 to 2016-17 was raised under the erstwhile business auxiliary service provisions even though the period fell under the Negative List regime, and that the relevant provisions applicable after 30.06.2012 had not been invoked.
