2016 (9) TMI 1357 - HC - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - it was noticed that Service Tax to the tune of ₹ 48,20,574/- had not been paid - intent to evade duty - Held that - This Court holds that there is no substantial question of law given the circumstances which were found, i.e. as to the inadvertence - also, the CESTAT s observations with respect to the assessee being a public sector entity and, therefore, not capable of suppressing facts cannot be construed as widely. The facts and circumstances of each case would have to be examined by the authorities in the light of the declarations made - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the extended period of limitation in Service Tax matters.

Analysis:
The appellant, represented by Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, SSC, and Deepak Anand, Jr. SC, raised the issue of whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) erred in not invoking the extended period of limitation. The respondent, represented by Shri Yogendra Aldak, Advocate, was a member of the Large Taxpayer Unit (LTU) and was audited, revealing a Service Tax discrepancy of &8377; 48,20,574. The CESTAT found that the respondent had rectified the error after finalizing the provisional assessment for 2002-03 and had informed the department. Despite being a public sector corporation, the CESTAT determined there was no intention to suppress facts. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the public sector status should not exempt the assessee from scrutiny. The High Court concluded that while there was no substantial question of law due to inadvertence, the CESTAT's view on the public sector entity's inability to suppress facts should not be generalized. Each case should be assessed based on the declarations made, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.