Extended Period cannot be invoked when Normal Period Demand settled on Merits: CESTAT favours IDP Education [Read Order]
When the issue stands decided on merits for the normal period and as a result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue limited to the invocation of the extended period does not survive.
The New Delhi bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal seeking invocation of the extended period of limitation in the case of IDP Education India (P.) Ltd.
The background is that the Revenue challenged Order-in-Original 03.06.2016, but only to the extent that the adjudicating authority had rejected the demand for the extended period.
At the same time, IDP Education India had also filed a separate appeal before CESTAT earlier. In that case, the IDP challenged the service tax liability even for the normal period, primarily on the allegation that it was acting as an “intermediary” in relation to foreign service providers.
The Department asserted that IDP Education India acted as an intermediary between IDP Australia / foreign universities and students in India.
It was alleged that students were recruited/admitted by foreign universities based on recommendations made by IDP India, and that IDP Australia received commission from foreign universities, a portion of which was shared with IDP India.
On this basis, service tax was proposed on the commission income.
The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical member) held that “the issue stands decided on merits for the normal period and as a result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue limited to the invocation of the extended period does not survive.”
Accordingly, the tribunal refused to entertain the matter and dismissed revenue’s appeal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
