Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (11) TMI 100 - AT - Service Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Best judgment assessment invoked in the SCN and the impugned order.
2. Relevant date for reckoning the limitation under section 73 and the normal period of limitation.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
4. Imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78.

Best Judgment Assessment:
The assessee argued that best judgment assessment was wrongly invoked, while the Revenue justified its use due to the assessee's failure to provide required documents. The tribunal found that best judgment assessment can be resorted to suo moto by the Central Excise Officer if the assessee fails to file the return or assess tax correctly. The tribunal dismissed the assessee's objections, noting that the SCN provided reasons for invoking best judgment assessment and that Form 26AS, used for assessment, could have been provided by the assessee.

Relevant Date for Reckoning Limitation:
The tribunal examined section 73(6) and concluded that the relevant date for reckoning limitation is the due date for filing the return if no return is filed by then. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the date of actual filing should be considered, stating that once the due date passes without filing, the relevant date is set, and subsequent filing does not alter it. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the relevant date and limitation periods.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The tribunal found that the reasons for invoking the extended period of limitation given in the SCN and impugned order were not sufficient to establish intent to evade tax. The tribunal noted that the demand was based on the assessee's records, which could have been scrutinized by the Range officer or audit team. The tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and sustained the demand only for the normal period of limitation.

Imposition of Penalties:
The tribunal set aside the penalty under section 78, as the elements required for its imposition were not present. The penalty under section 77(1)(c) was upheld, as the assessee failed to appear in response to summons and produce documents. The penalty under section 77(2) was set aside due to lack of specific violations mentioned. The late fee under section 70 was upheld as it is a statutory fee.

Conclusion:
Service Tax Appeal no. 51364 of 2018 filed by the Revenue was dismissed. Service Tax Appeal no. 50384 of 2018 filed by the assessee was partly allowed, upholding the demand of service tax with interest for the normal period of limitation, late fee under section 70, and penalty under section 77(1)(c). The demand for the extended period of limitation and penalties under sections 77(2) and 78 were set aside. The assessee is entitled to consequential relief, if any.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates