Landmark Decision: Service Tax Appeal No. 85246 of 2023

Case Name:

Service Tax Appeal No. 85246 of 2023 - Umesh Tilak Yadav vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Key Takeaways:

1. The show cause notice demanding service tax did not establish that the difference in returns was consideration received for providing any service.
2. The tribunal ruled that the show cause notice dated 26.06.2020 was not sustainable in law and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

Case Synopsis:

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, regarding Service Tax Appeal No. 85246 of 2023. The case involves an appeal by Umesh Tilak Yadav, a professional cricket player, against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur.

Here’s a breakdown of the key details and the decision made by the tribunal:

Case Details:

1. Appellant: Umesh Tilak Yadav

Address: House No.968, Saoner Road, Kharparkheda, Datta Nagar, Millan Chowk, Teh. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra

2. Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Address: GST Bhavan, Civil Lines, Telangkhedi Road, Nagpur 440 001

3. Appearance:

Shri Mahesh Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant

Shri Badhe Piyush Barasu, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

4. Coram:

HON’BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

5. Date of Hearing: 22.09.2023

6. Date of Decision: 08.11.2023

7. Final Order No.: 87105/2023

8. Presiding Member: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR

Summary of the Case:

1. The appellant, a professional cricket player, was issued a show cause notice on 26.06.2020, stating a difference of Rs.1,97,71,881/- between the income shown in the Income Tax Return (ITR) and the value of service shown in the Service Tax (ST) returns for the year 2014-15.
2. The show cause notice demanded service tax of Rs.24,43,804/- and proposed penalties under various sections.
3. The original authority dropped the demand based on a ruling by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Saurav Ganguly vs. UOI.
4. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal filed by Revenue.
5. The appellant then appealed to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

Tribunal’s Decision:

1. The appellant’s counsel argued that the entire demand was based on the difference in ST-3 returns and income tax return, and the demand was raised without examination of the books of accounts, making it bad in law.
2. The tribunal found that the show cause notice did not establish that the difference in returns was consideration received for providing any service.
3. The tribunal held that the show cause notice dated 26.06.2020 was not sustainable in law and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 08.11.2023 by Member (Technical) Anil G. Shakkarwar and Member (Judicial) Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati.

FAQ:

Q1: What was the basis of the demand for service tax in this case?

A1: The demand was based on the difference between the income shown in the Income Tax Return (ITR) and the value of service shown in the Service Tax (ST) returns for the year 2014-15.

Q2: What was the outcome of the appeal to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal?

A2: The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the show cause notice demanding service tax was not sustainable in law.