In a recent case of M/s. Shubham Electricals versus CST & ST, Rohtak, CESTAT of New Delhi (2015(6) TMI 786)held that Section 72 of The Finance Act, 1994 which connotes the implication of Best Judgement assessment, can only be used to determine the quantum of services rendered. There cannot be a best judgment assessment regarding the specific service provided.
There can be no best judgment assessment, for instance as to whether the tax liability is for income tax, sales tax, excise duty, customs duty, service tax, or professional tax.
A conclusion as to the taxable event and the liability to tax under the appropriate fiscal legislation authorizing the levy and collection of such tax is a matter for determination with precision and clarity and not by a process of guesswork or speculation.
In the cited case, the SCN claimed that the appellant had kept the facts undisclosed in so much as the service tax amounting Rs. 1,53,14,782/- for the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011, adding on with the interest and penalty under Section 75, 77, and 78.
Penalty under section 76 was dropped on account of mutually exclusive nature of penalty u/s 76 and 78. Further, the true nature of the service could not be enumerated due to a lack of facts as per the revenue. In such a case, BJA was applied to exaggerate the service tax demand as stated supra.
Appellant had provided copies of 20 work orders executed in relation to CWG Projects. From the description of the works, officers could have classified the several works into the appropriate taxable service which may appropriately govern rendition of these services.
Hon’ble CESTAT observed that the disinclination to employ the ample investigatory powers conferred by the Act is illustrative of gross Departmental failure and cannot afford justification for passing an incoherent and vague adjudication order. The failure to gather relevant facts for issuing a proper show cause notice cannot provide justification for a vague and incoherent show cause notice which has resulted in a serious transgression of the due process of law. Hence, BJA in this case is not tenable.
Contact US: singh@carajput.com or call at 9555555480
More read: Taxation on Income from Equity and Debt Mutual Fund
Creditors Recover INR 4 Lakh Cr Under IBC Performance (Till Sept 2025) INR 3.99 lakh crore realised by creditors through… Read More
GST Portal Update: GSTR-3B Will Be BLOCKED for ITC / RCM Ledger Mismatch Goods and Services Tax Network has introduced… Read More
ITR REFUND ALERT – READ THIS BEFORE 31 DECEMBER The Income Tax Dept. has recently started issuing system-generated SMS/emails to… Read More
Comparison of the new tax regime vs. the old tax regime for FY 2025-26 Comparison of the new tax regime… Read More
Data on Direct Tax (DT) collections and Advance Tax collections for FY 2024-25 as on 12.01.2025 has been released. Direct… Read More
New income tax forms & Expected changes & transitional details as of Dec 2025 When the New Income-Tax Act &… Read More
