NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (04 Dec 2018)

Extended period of limitation is only applicable in case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of provision with intent to evade payment of Service Tax

MANU/CB/0154/2018

Service Tax

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the Appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax. Appellants submitted that, the Revenue has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation of 5 years which can only be invoked in case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions with intent to evade payment of Service Tax.

The Appellant is a State Government undertaking which is engaged in providing various taxable services and after the audit, the Appellant themselves computed the tax liability and paid the Service Tax of Rs. 1,46,390 on 25th March 2006 whereas the SCN was issued on 16th January 2008 much beyond the period of one year. Further, the Appellants have not suppressed any material fact with intent to evade payment of tax. Further, the Revenue has wrongly invoked the extended period of 5 years which is only applicable in the case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of provision with intent to evade payment of Service Tax whereas in the present case, there is no material to hold that there was an intention on the part of the Appellant to evade the payment of Service Tax. Further, in the Appellant's own case, this Tribunal has held that the Assessee being a Statuary Government Body, there could not be any mala fide intention to evade payment of tax.

The grounds on which the extended period of limitation can be invoked have not been specifically pleaded by the Revenue in the SCN. The impugned order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside by holding that the entire demand is barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   EXTENDED PERIOD   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved