Extended Period of Limitation for Service Tax Not Invocable in Lack of Suppression of Facts: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand under Finance Act, 1994 [Read Order]
Nothing Mala-fide Found to be Attributable to the Appellant, Ruling Out Possibility of Extending the Period of Limitation
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bench at Mumbai set aside the demand of service tax and penalty, holding that the extended period of limitation for service tax is not invocable due to lack of suppression of facts.
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow, wherein the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 15,91,208/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, alongwith equal penalty under Section 78 of the same Act.
Represented by Dushyant Kumar, the appellant Samriddhi Infrabuild, submitted that copy of the work orders pertaining to body corporates other than UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (UPRNNL) were duly presented before the Commissioner (Appeals), but they have not been properly examined.
The Appellant claimed benefit of partial reverse charge for providing ‘Works Contract Services’ to body corporates. It was further claimed that the appellant have been filing ST-3 Returns and discharging their tax liability regularly and thus extended period of limitation is not applicable on this very ground.
After hearing both sides, P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) opined that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of exemption/abatement for services provided to the corporate bodies other than UPRNNL. It was asserted that in a case in which a SCN has been issued for the earlier period on a certain set of facts, then on the same set of facts another SCN invoking an extended period of limitation cannot be issued.
To conclude, there was no evidence of suppression of facts on the part of the Appellant and as a result, another period of limitation is not invokable. The Appellant were regularly filling ST-3 Returns and all the facts were in the knowledge of the Department. Hence, the impugned order was set aside.
The appeal filed was thereby allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
