SC: Public Premises Act Prevails over State Rent Laws For Evicting Unauthorised Occupants  ||  SC: Doctors Were Unwavering Heroes in COVID-19, and Their Sacrifice Remains Indelible  ||  SC Sets Up Secondary Medical Board to Assess Passive Euthanasia Plea of Man in Vegetative State  ||  NCLAT: Amounts Listed As ‘Other Advances’ in Company’s Balance Sheet aren’t Financial Debt under IBC  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Objections to Coc Cannot Bar RP From Challenging Preferential Transactions  ||  J&K&L HC: Courts Should Exercise Caution When Granting Interim Relief in Public Infrastructure Cases  ||  Bombay HC: SARFAESI Sale Invalid if Sale Certificate is Not Issued Prior to IBC Moratorium  ||  Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases  ||  SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension  ||  SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved