M/s. Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1181 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 17-12-2018
ST/Misc. /41112/2017 and ST/611/2011 – Final Order No. 43122/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants are engaged in providing storage and warehousing services, cleaning services, business auxiliary services and GTA services. During the audit of accounts, it was noticed that the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant did not tally with the income tax returns in their financial records and they had not discharged service tax correctly. Raising the above allegations, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of service tax along with interest and for imposing p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
/2002- So also the services of fumigation are exempted with regard to storing of agricultural produce. The appellant had provided such services not only for the agricultural produce but also for petroleum products. But the original authority has not taken into consideration the fumigation receipts, dess receipts etc. and has also not given weight to the contention of the appellant that they are using the warehouse for storing of agricultural products such as paddy, wheat etc. The impugned order has confirmed the demand without mentioning the classification of service. The appellant has not been able to understand the category of service on which the demand has been made and with much effort has defended the proceedings. In respect of difference in the ST-3 returns and the income tax returns, he submitted that during the relevant period, which is prior to 2011, the ST-3 returns were on receipt basis whereas the income tax returns were filed on accrual basis. These have been explained to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to confirm the demand under a particular category. The allegation in the show cause notice as well as confirmation in the impugned order does not indicate as to what are the services under which the demand can sustain. The appellants have rendered storing and warehousing services for agricultural produce as well as petroleum products. They have rendered transportation of services for petroleum products. The department has not considered the exemption eligible for agricultural produce and has raised the demand without mentioning the category of service. It is not understood whether the demand is on storage or warehousing services or under GTA service. There is a fundamental flaw in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order. For this reason, we hold that the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
6. The miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for change of cause titl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =