CESTAT Reiterates Extended Period of Limitation Not Invokable When there is a Bona-fide Belief about Non-taxable/Exempted Nature of the Services [Read Order]
CESTAT set aside the orders from lower authorities and held that extended limitation is not invokable if the appellant had bona-fide belief about the non-taxable nature of services he was partaking in.
![CESTAT Reiterates Extended Period of Limitation Not Invokable When there is a Bona-fide Belief about Non-taxable/Exempted Nature of the Services [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/04/2127764-cestat-reiterates-limitation-whenbona-fide-belief-exempted-nature-of-the-services-.webp "CESTAT Reiterates Extended Period of Limitation Not Invokable When there is a Bona-fide Belief about Non-taxable/Exempted Nature of the Services [Read Order]")
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reiterated that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when there is a bona-fide belief of the appellant that the nature of services rendered is non-taxable or exempted. Also Read:Right to Redemption of Property is Lost After Sale: DRT Dismisses Securitization Application [Read Order] The appellant...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reiterated that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when there is a bona-fide belief of the appellant that the nature of services rendered is non-taxable or exempted.
The appellant is engaged in providing/receiving taxable services as defined under Section 65B(44) read with Section 66D of the Finance Act. A show cause notice dated 30.03.2021 was issued after the appellant did not respond to the inquiry asking to furnish details of payment of service tax.
The tribunal observed that the appellant was registered with the department and was paying service tax during 2016-17. However, it was also observed that he was not registered and did not pay any service tax during 2015-16. The lower authorities have shown that sale of space for advertisement on the internet, also known as aerial advertising, was subjected to service tax during the period of dispute.
The appellant was under the belief that such services fall under the negative list as per Section 66D(g) of the Finance Act,, 1994. Further, CESTAT observed that a demand made by invoking an extended period of limitation could not have been made as the appellant was believing that his services fell under the negative list and therefore was not required to pay any service tax. The tribunal relied on various case laws for drawing this conclusion.
The bench of Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) held that a demand made by invoking extended period cannot be upheld and set aside the impugned order by allowing the present appeal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
