" CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH SERVICE TAX APPEAL No.85047 OF 2023 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.43/MG/Pr.COMMR/me/2022-23 dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,9th Floor, Lotus Info Centre, J.B.Marg, Near Parel Station, Mumbai-400012 ] WOCKHARDT HOSPITALS LTD 8th Floor, Wokhardt Towers, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051 Appellant Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI EAST COMMISSIONERATE, 9th Floor, Lotus Info Centre JB Marg, Near Parel Station, Mumbai-400012 Respondent Appearance: Present for the Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate Present for the Respondent:Shri A S Parihar (AR) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) FINAL ORDER NO.86191/2025 Date of Hearing: 10.06.2025 Date of Decision:31.07.2025 PER:AJAY SHARMA This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned Order-in- Original dated 10.08.2022 to the extent it confirms demand of Service Tax of Rs.6,28,192/- alongwith interest and penalties under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. 2 2. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the appellant is providing ‘Health Care Services’ and having its hospital units located in the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Goa. They have total 10 units including Head Office, which do not have any income except rental income and all units are separately registered under Service Tax. For the financial year 2015-16 some discrepancy was noticed by the audit in the turnover declared in the appellant’s Income Tax Return (ITR) as compared to the turnover declared in the Service Tax Return and the appellant was asked to furnish the reconciliation statement explaining the reasons for the said discrepancy. As per Revenue, since the appellant failed to comply with the direction, a show cause notice dated 23.12.2020 was issued proposing demand of service tax amounting to Rs.54,32,39,988/- with applicable interest and penalties. The Adjudicating Authority i.e. learned Principal Commissioner vide impugned order dated 10.8.2022 confirmed the demand of Rs.6,28,192/- alongwith interest and penalties under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 while setting aside the remaining demand proposed in the show cause notice (supra). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative on behalf of revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions placed on record by learned counsel. The issue is all about the tax on rental income of Rs.83,13,697/- which pertains to the corporate office. Before the Adjudicating Authority the appellant stated that they have declared the rental income in their ST-3 returns and have discharged tax on the same. Whereas on examining the said ST-3 return, the Adjudicating Authority noticed that they have declared only 3 Rs.39,81,337/- as rental income in the ST-3 return and thus there was a difference of Rs.43,32,360/- [i.e. Rs.83,13,697– Rs.39,81,337] and thus liable to pay service tax of Rs.6,28,192/- @ 14.5% on the differential amount of Rs.43,32,360/-. 4. On being asked why they have failed to disclose the rental income of Rs.43,32,360/- for the period October, 2015 to March, 2016 in their ST-3 returns, learned counsel submits that in the ST- 3 return for the period October,2015-March,2016 the rental income was disclosed, albeit inadvertently under the head ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ instead of ‘renting of immovable property service’ although for earlier periods the same was used to be shown under the head renting of immovable property service. In order to substantiate the submission, learned counsel placed on record the half yearly ST-3 returns filed by them for the year 2015- 16. Leaned counsel further submits that out of the differential amount i.e. Rs.43,32,360/-as pointed out by the department, an amount of Rs.43,21,479/- was duly mentioned by them in their ST- 3 return in a different head as stated earlier and only the minor amount of Rs.10,881/- [i.e. Rs.43,32,360 – Rs.43,21,479] was not disclosed in the ST-3 return. It has been submitted that compliance with the impugned order would result in double taxation, which is legally not permissible. 5. In reply to the query that why didn’t they point out these things to the Adjudicating Authority, learned counsel submits that no such query was raised by the said authority during the adjudication proceedings nor any such issue was mentioned in the show cause notice and hence there was no opportunity for them to explain it to the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel also challenged the invocation of extended period and submits that 4 mere difference in income tax and service tax returns cannot be the basis for invoking extended period of limitation. According to learned counsel entire demand goes on this ground alone and there is no question of any interest or penalty. Per contra learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. It was the duty of the appellant to explain the case in its entirety to the adjudicating authority alongwith the supporting documents during the course of hearing as the onus is onto them. Afterwards the adjudicating authority cannot be blamed for the fault of theirs. But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that once the impugned order stands then it amounts to double taxation which is against the spirit of taxation because the amount involved herein which, as per appellant, has inadvertently been shown in ST-3 return under the wrong head ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. The amount may not be substantial but the principle against double taxation is well established in tax jurisprudence. Justice need not only be done but also seen to have been done. The contention of the appellant regarding inadvertent classification of rental income under the wrong head in theST-3 return merit consideration, particularly in light of the documents placed on record. It is, no doubt, the duty of the appellant to explain its position before the Adjudicating Authority. However, considering the fact that the error was inadvertent and supported by evidence and that no specific query or opportunity was provided during adjudication, it would be in the interest of justice to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to place the same to the Adjudicating Authority. 5 7. Therefore without going into the merits, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order to the extent it has been challenged herein and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after due compliance with the principle of natural justice and uninfluenced by any previous findings. The appellant is also directed to produce all the documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority in support of its claim. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in open Court on 31.07.2025) (Ajay Sharma) Member (Judicial) mk "