Non-declaration of Service by Recovery Agent liable to be taxed with interest and penalty: CESTAT rejects appeal, cites lack of Evidence [Read Order]
The facts of the case are that the appellant were found providing service as a recovery agency and had neither declared these services nor paid any service tax on it
![Non-declaration of Service by Recovery Agent liable to be taxed with interest and penalty: CESTAT rejects appeal, cites lack of Evidence [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/30/2135044-evidencejpg.webp "Non-declaration of Service by Recovery Agent liable to be taxed with interest and penalty: CESTAT rejects appeal, cites lack of Evidence [Read Order]")
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi Bench, held that non-declaration of service by a recovery agency is liable to be taxed with interest and penalty. The appeal was rejected due to lack of evidence. Also Read:Dept Fails to Specify Clause in SCN: CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand on Tour Operator [Read Order] The facts of the case are...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi Bench, held that non-declaration of service by a recovery agency is liable to be taxed with interest and penalty. The appeal was rejected due to lack of evidence.
The facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with the service tax department for providing Banking Services and Legal Consultancy Services during July 2012 to September 2015 but it was found that they had also been providing service as a recovery agency and had neither declared these services nor paid any service tax on it. The show cause notice was issued against them proposing to recover service tax along with interest and penalty.
The Additional Commissioner confirmed the proposals in her order dated 27.9.2015. When appealed, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Addl. Commissioner.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the joint venture between them and Barclays was not a partnership. The counsel relied on several decisions including Omaxe for EST Spa & Hills Developers Ltd v. Commissioner, CGST to contend that since they were under bonafide belief that they did not have to pay service tax, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
The CESTAT observed that the submissions of the appellant have already been heard before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that there was no documentary evidence of any joint venture. The tribunal noted that the appellant acted as the recovery agent and recovered amounts for Barclays from the borrowers and Barclays gave the appellant a commission for its work.
The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) rejected the appeal and held that no evidence had been produced before them that there was any joint venture. The demand of service tax along with interest and penalties were upheld.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
