Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

Teradata India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (20 Feb 2024)

Extended period cannot be invoked unless a positive act on the part of the assessee is evidenced showing the intent to evade payment of duty

MANU/CJ/0028/2024

Service Tax

Issue to be decided in the instant case is as to whether the Appellants are liable to pay penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 when the service tax was paid along with interest before the issuance of show-cause notice.

The Appellant submits that there was no suppression of facts on their side with intent to evade payment of duty and for that reason, the extended period cannot be invoked. On going through the impugned order and the show-cause notice, present Tribunal find that except for stating that the show-cause notice has been issued only after conduct of audit and that the appellants have suppressed the material facts, no evidence has been put forth in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order to show that there has been a positive act of suppression on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty.

Tribunal has been consistent in holding that, extended period cannot be invoked unless a positive act on the part of the assessee is evidenced showing the intent to evade payment of duty. Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that, a mere non-payment of service tax and non-filing of Returns would not be a sufficient reason to extend the period of limitation. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved