Case Law Details
J.P. Iscon Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT finds that in the present case the Revenue has raised the Service tax demand merely on the ground of investigation conducted by the Income Tax Authorities. We find that demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of assessment made by the Income Tax Authorities. Tribunal in the case of Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad – 2011 (266) E.L.T. 399 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that admission by assessee to Income Tax department as regards undisclosed/suppressed sales turnover cannot be held to be on account of clandestine removal of their final products, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Similarly, in the case of C.C.E., Ludhiana v. Mayfair Resorts – 2011 (22) S.T.R. 263 (P&H), it was held so. We also find that the CESTAT in the case of Kipps Education Centre, Bathinda v. C. C.E., Chandigarh – 2009 (13) S.T.R. 422 (Tri.-Del.), has held that the income voluntarily disclosed before the income tax authorities could not be added to the taxable value unless there is evidence to prove the same.
In view of above, CESTAT are of the considered view that in the present matter entire demand of service tax as proposed in the show cause notice is not sustainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The present appeals have been filed by M/s J.P. Iscon Pvt. Ltd., Shri Pravin T Kotak, Shri Jayesh T Kotak, Shri Jatin M. Gupta, Shri Amit M Gupta and also by Revenue against the common Order-in-Original No. AHMEXCUS-001-COM-002-21-22 dtd. 27.04.2021. Both sides are in appeal against the impugned order. Issues in these appeals since emanating out of the same impugned order, they are taken up together for common disposal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
