9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to show-cause notice u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for alleged non-payment of service tax on land development services provided to M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and invocation of extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) on grounds of suppression of facts.
Judgment Details: The writ petition challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Additional Director-General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, against the petitioner for alleged non-payment of service tax on land development services provided to M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. The petitioner sought a declaration that the notice was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, time-barred, and illegal. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that activities like "levelling of soil including filling of gorges/nallah, removing of shrubs, grass and rubbish from the area" were not liable to service tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice alleged that the petitioner had not paid service tax on services provided to M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. for their real estate project at Sahara City Homes, Amritsar. Investigations revealed that the petitioner had received a substantial amount as consideration but had not paid service tax. The Department issued summons to the petitioner and recorded statements under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Act, alleging that the petitioner had wilfully suppressed facts to evade payment of service tax. The petitioner argued that they had truthfully disclosed all relevant facts and that the extension of limitation was permissible only in cases of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. The Court considered the arguments and found that the petitioner's filing of returns did not amount to suppression of information. However, it noted that the specific contract covering the taxable service was not disclosed, which could be considered as suppression. The Court also found that the activity undertaken by the petitioner was not exempt under section 65(97a) as it was not directly related to agriculture. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the observations made in the order should not influence the competent authority's decision on the matter. The petitioner was given the opportunity to raise all grounds in response to the show-cause notice. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice for alleged non-payment of service tax on land development services, citing issues of suppression of facts and the applicability of the extended period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994.
|
