Rs.1,14,41,828/-, an amount of Rs.1,11,22,069/- was dropped in the original order and the balance amount of service tax of Rs.3,19,759/- was confirmed as payable by the appellant under the taxable category of GTA service. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had issued the “consignment note” in favour of the receiver of taxable service M/s. New Saravana Stores, who is not falling under the purview of Rule 2(1)(d)(B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Serial No. A(ii) of the Notification No.30/2012. Thus, it is evident that the appellant is liable to pay service tax in respect of the taxable service provided to M/s. New Saravana Stores. Since the appellant did not discharge its service tax liability, the same was confirmed by the original authority in the order dated 05.06.2022. Since the appellant is registered with the Service Tax department and did not correctly capture the figures in the service tax returns, there was no scope or occasion on the part of the department to find out the actual taxable service provided by it and since based on the information submitted by the appellant subsequently, the show cause proceedings were initiated, it cannot be said that the same is barred by limitation of time. With regard to the submissions made by the appellant that the show cause notice had not captured the facts of the case properly, I find that the said submission of the appellant cannot be tenable at this juncture, inasmuch as it had clearly submitted the background facts of the case before the adjudicating authority, mentioning that it had provided the taxable service under the GTA service and that in respect of substantial amount of service tax proposed to be recovered in the show cause notice, the recipient of the services had already discharged the service tax liability either as the consignor or as consignee. Since the impugned order has specifically recorded the factual background of the case, I am of the view that the submissions made by the appellant that the show cause notice did not capture the facts properly cannot be considered as proper and justifiable. I am in agreement with the learned Advocate that the benefit of abatement in terms of Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 had not been extended by the department, while calculating the service tax demand payable by the appellant. Thus, I am of the view that only for the purpose of quantification of the service tax demand by extending the benefit of abatement, if any, the matter is required to be examined afresh by the original authority.
